Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.

Address for,
Return of Licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic., cap. 77, showing the number of experiments performed under the Act during 1935, and the registered places at which such experiments may be performed (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 127, of Session 1935)."—[Mr. Lloyd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RIVER POLLUTION.

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times the Scottish advisory committee on rivers pollution prevention have met since 1931, giving the number of meetings for each year, respectively; and the names of the rivers on which they have already reported?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The committee have held five meetings in 1931, seven in 1932, nine in 1933, eight in 1935 and three to date in 1936, a total of 32 meetings. No meetings were held in 1934. The committee have reported on the Rivers Tweed, Esk (Midlothian), Leven and Ore (Fife), Tyne (East Lothian), Almond (Midlothian), Avon (West Lothian), and Grange Burn (Stirling).

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish

Anglers' Association have protested that, despite the inspection of the Forth, there is still no report on that river?

Sir G. COLLINS: The committee are presently investigating the River Forth. There is much work to be done before their report can be issued.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress the committee are making?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will ask the committee to see whether they can hurry their proceedings, but I am not dissatisfied with their progress.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (POLICE EXPENDITURE).

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received representations, on behalf of the principal police authorities in Scotland, on the increasing cost of transport control and the inadequacy of the grants made by the Government in respect thereof, and why he has ignored the request of these authorities for him to receive a deputation to hear the case for the local authorities being relieved of this cost and for the whole of the costs involved in enforcing the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts being met either through the Scottish Office or from the Ministry of Transport; and what action does he propose to remove or reduce this growing burden from the ratepayers' shoulders?

Sir G. COLLINS: The principal police authorities in Scotland have forwarded to me a statement of their views as to the costs of traffic control, and I have invited them to submit particulars of any further points which they may desire to bring to my notice. Meanwhile the whole subject is under active consideration by the Departments concerned.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Am I to understand that after they submit any additional information they may have to give the right hon. Gentleman will then meet a deputation of these authorities, who represent the County Councils' Association, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the four large cities?

Sir G. COLLINS: The question involves many Departments of State, and before I can give a definite assurance I should require to consult with my colleagues.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that the deputation have asked to be received not merely by the right hon. Gentleman but by the Minister of Transport?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, but as the question involves others beside myself I should like to consult them.

NUTRITION (CHILDREN).

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he is aware that the Departmental Committee on Scottish Health Services has reported that 6 per cent. of the children medically examined in the schools of Scotland are reported as suffering from insufficient nutrition; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: The report of the committee on Scottish Health Services state that in 1933–34 the nutrition of school children was "below average" in 5.3 per cent. and "very bad" in 0.19 per cent. The report makes it clear, however, that malnutrition is not in all cases due primarily to underfeeding but may arise from other conditions such as disease, injudicious feeding, lack of fresh air, sleep, etc. All these children are kept under close observation by school medical officers, and steps are taken to secure appropriate treatment. In many areas free meals are provided at school, and milk is supplied to school children at reduced rates. The possibility of extending these facilities to other areas is constantly under review.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my right hon. Friend consider in this connection extending the right of panel doctors to prescribe milk for all children, irrespective of whether they are at school or not?

Sir G. COLLINS: That raises a large issue which I could not deal with in reply to a supplementary question.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Are not these results to some extent due to the diminution of the use of milk in the home, resulting from the regulations of the milk boards?

Sir G. COLLINS: There is no evidence which would lead me to agree with the hon. Member on that point.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the fact that in the recent report on the health of Scotland none of the medical officers give any indication of any diminution apart from poverty?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am not aware of all that is in the numerous reports.

Mr. HARDIE: I have read them.

SECONDARY EDUCATION SCHEMES (REVISION).

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the last revision of secondary education schemes was made, and when another revision is to be made as provided in Sections 6 and 27 of the Act of 1918?

Sir G. COLLINS: The details of the schemes for the adequate provision of education throughout the education areas are constantly under review, but no occasion has yet arisen for a general and simultaneous revision of all schemes. If the Education (Scotland) Bill passes into law, I propose to require each education authority to submit a comprehensive revised scheme with special regard to accommodation required to meet the higher school-leaving age.

Mr. HARDIE: Having regard to the Bill now going through the House ought not the Department to be prepared with all these schemes, and s the right hon. Gentleman now trying to intimate that the local education authorities have to prepare all the schemes?

Sir G. COLLINS: It is not the province of the central Department to issue orders to local authorities, but to invite their opinions and views and, after consultation with them, to come to a final decision.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1872 (CENSUS).

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the last census was called for as provided by Section 31 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872; and whether a new census is to be called at an early date?

Sir G. COLLINS: The information referred to in Section 31 of the Act of 1872 is submitted annually to the Department and is published in their annual report or in their statistical lists.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he has sufficiently interested his Department in the question of this census, and is he aware of the numbers that cannot be traced in various districts of Scotland to-day?

Sir G. COLLINS: I must leave that to the Department concerned.

Mr. HARDIE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the Department could find out? Will he not let them get on with the work?

Sir G. COLLINS: The departments are under my orders, and I could not delegate my authority.

OAT-GROWERS.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce any Government measures for the assistance of oat-growers in the north-east of Scotland?

Sir CHARLES BARCLAY-HARVEY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the difficulties which are being experienced by farmers in the north-east of Scotland; and whether it is the intention of the Government to come to their assistance by the granting of a subsidy or of other assistance to oat-growers?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Government regret that as a result of prolonged examination of the problem they have reached the conclusion that in the present circumstances a scheme of direct financial assistance to oat-growers cannot be inaugurated. The Government's long-term meat policy which was announced by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday will, however, I am satisfied, prove of material assistance to farmers in oat-growing areas, and should contribute substantially to the improvement of conditions in the North-East of Scotland, particularly if, as the Government desires, provision is made for adjusting the cattle subsidy payments so as to give further encouragement to quality production.

Mr. BOOTHBY: As my right hon. Friend finds himself unable to deal with oats separately, will the Government examine the question of cereal production in this country as a whole? Does he not think that the Government might

consider the possibility of setting up something in the nature of a cereal pool to cover wheat, oats and barley, and the country as a whole?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will certainly explore the whole cereal position in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will the Minister when dealing with subsidies consider putting these men under the means test, the same as our chaps?

Sir R. W. SMITH: Do the Government realise that if the cereal position in Scotland is allowed to go from bad to worse, as has happened in the past, the result will be that a large number of farmers will not be producing the amount of food for the country that they ought to be?

Sir C. BARCLAY-HARVEY: In view of the extreme importance of oat-growing in that part of Scotland, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this unfortunate decision of the Government will have a most disastrous effect on agriculture there?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid that my answer will be a disappointment to oat-growers in the North-East of Scotland, which I regret. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. W. Smith), my answer to his question links up with what I have already said, that we will certainly explore the whole cereal problem in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Sir R. W. SMITH: In view of the meat situation, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the position of beef producers? They will have to charge a higher price for their beef in order to make up for their losses on oats.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can arrange to give the inshore fishermen of Orkney better protection against trawlers than they have at present?

Sir G. COLLINS: The question of additional protection in Orkney waters was carefully considered by the Fishery Board last autumn, and as a result a hired drifter was specially detailed for


patrolling those waters during the period from October to March when illegal trawling is most likely to occur. I am informed that the local fishermen have expressed appreciation of this arrangement and its renewal next winter will be considered. During the present summer the regular fishery cruiser has been Instructed to pay full attention to the protection of Orkney waters.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the number of fishery cruisers is sufficient to provide adequate protection against illegal trawling?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, in conjunction with the steps we are taking.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: In view of the questions now being asked on this subject, is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to proceed with the building of the third fishery cruiser, and so complete the number of new cruisers which was the original programme of the Fishery Board?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid I am unable to give a specific answer now to that particular question. If the hon. Member will put it on the Paper, I shall be happy to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

DISTRICT AGREEMENTS (DEFICIENCIES).

Mr. E. DUNN: asked the Secretary for Mines the amounts of deficiencies now existing under district agreements in the coal-mining industry and in what districts the deficiencies exist, stating the amounts in each district; and what are the profits which have been made in the same districts covering the periods of the accumulated deficiencies?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): This information is not in the possession of my Department.

Mr. DUNN: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make representations to the coal owners in all districts in the country to agree to the cancellation of all existing deficiencies so as to enable the miners to share the financial advantages anticipated in the coal industry from the operations of the new coal-selling schemes?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to two questions by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 2nd July.

Mr. DUNN: ; In view of the fact that the coal trade is now making enormous profits, as a result of the arrangement made last year, and in order that the miners might secure full advantage from the selling schemes, might not the Minister make some representation, as suggested in the question on the Paper

Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to the hon. Member is, as I said the other day, that now there is a joint consultative committee in existence and full national machinery has been set up, it should be left to do its work.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact, in view of the large deficiencies, that it will take years before the miners secure any benefit from the selling agencies, and does the Minister not think that the Government ought to use their influence with the coalowners to dispose of the outstanding deficiencies?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As this form of machinery now exists it had better tackle this problem for itself.

Mr. BELLENGER: Does the Minister consider that there is the remotest chance of these large deficiencies ever being met by the miners, and should not they be dealt with as any business house would, namely, write them off as bad debts?

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that the deficiencies are over £40,000,000?

SELLING SCHEMES.

Mr. E. DUNN: asked the Secretary for Mines what representations he proposes to make to the owners of coal mines in Great Britain so as to ensure that the new revenues of the industry under the proposed new selling schemes may, for the purposes of wages ascertainment, be calculated upon a national basis and not upon a district basis?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not propose to make any such representations.

EMPLOYMENT, NORTHUMBERLAND (STATISTICS).

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of men and lads employed in the following classes of workmen employed in Northumberland mines: surface men and lads, stonemen and shifters, fillers, cutters, and pullers up, and, further, the man-hours, respectively, worked per week for the month of May and the first two weeks of June, 1936?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. TAYLOR: how or when is the Department likely to be interested in the question of overtime in the respective districts?

Captain CROOKSHANK: We have followed questions of overtime, but that is not what I am asked here. I am asked for a number of figures which I have not got.

Mr. WHITELEY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that this is a method of obtaining exactly what overtime is worked, and that by having all the trades classified and the shifts put into proper order, a properly tabulated scheme could be made?

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the Minister aware that I asked a question as to overtime last year, and that he was unable to reply, and is he aware that if we could get the man-hours worked per week, we should be able to calculate the overtime?

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: Does the Minister mean to convey the impression that he has asked for information from the owners, and has been refused?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not going further with regard to impressions, except to say that I regret I have not this information.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the Minister get it?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not get it?

SOUTH WALES (EXPORTS TO SPAIN).

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Secretary for Mines the average monthly tonnage of coal exported from South Wales to Spain for 1935, and similar information for the first six months of 1936?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The average monthly quantity of coal exported to Spain from the Bristol Channel ports during 1935 was 70,265 tons and during the first five months of 1936 61,040 tons. Particulars in respect of June, 1936, are not yet available.

ACCIDENTS (BOYS).

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the divisional inspector of mines for the northern area, in which it is stated that the number of boys under 16 years of age killed and seriously injured per 1,000 employed was 10.76 compared with the general rate of 5.62 per 1,000 for all persons employed; and what steps he is taking to deal with this part of the report?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) on 28th May last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. STEWART: Were these boys trained in safety principles before they entered the mine, and if they were, and still we have these serious accidents, what further steps can the hon. and gallant Gentleman take to see that boys are educated as to the dangers they have to face when entering mines? Is it possible to appoint safety officers to look after them when they enter mines and until they acquire pit sense?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Most of these points are dealt with in the reply to which I have referred the hon. Gentleman. No one could be more anxious than I am to see a reduction in these accidents in the case of boys, and to do all that is possible to reduce the number by the provision of safety classes.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Minister promise that if he cannot do anything to reduce the number of boys killed he will consider seriously not letting them go down the mines; and does he realise that it shocks the conscience of the country to realise that boys of 16 work in the mines?

ACCIDENTS (YORKSHIRE).

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make special inquiry into the abnormal rise in


fatal accidents in the Yorkshire division for the year 1935, which is 171, against 107 for 1934, although there are 24,012 fewer men working in the mines than in 1931?

Captain CROOKSHANK: A close study of the regrettable increase in the number of fatal accidents in Yorkshire has already been made and the causes are fully analysed and discussed in the annual report of the Divisional Inspector for 1935 which has just been published. Without belittling in any way a set-back which must cause grave concern to all who have responsibilities for the safety of the mine workers of Yorkshire, it should be borne in mind that the number of persons killed in 1934, namely, 107, was exceptionally low. The average for the past 10 years is 154 and the figure for 1931, the year quoted by the hon. Member, was 163, while the figure of 171 for 1935 includes 29 deaths resulting from two explosions, the causes of which have been fully investigated.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister aware that there are fewer miners working in Yorkshire at this moment than at any time in the last 10 years, and does he not think it requires something more than kindly and sympathetic expressions to relieve the situation?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir; so much more does it require that we have set up a Royal Commission to investigate the problem.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is the Secretary for Mines satisfied that in this division there are sufficient inspectors to inspect the mines adequately?

Mr. LEVY: Is the Minister also aware that the Yorkshire mineowners are doing their utmost to see that the mines are kept perfectly safe by the application of modern scientific appliances?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Captain CROOKSHANK: An answer is not required to all those expressions of opinion. As regards the inquiry of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), a question of that kind should be put upon the Paper.

MINING ROYALTIES (LEGISLATION).

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines when the Government intend to bring in the Bill to deal with mining royalties?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Bill is in course of preparation, but I am not at the moment in a position to say when it will be ready for introduction.

Mr. TINKER: Will it be brought forward this Session? This question was put down to the Prime Minister. I do not object to the hon. and gallant Gentleman answering it, if he can give us something definite. We ought to have a definite reply to questions of this character.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot go any further than I have gone in saying that I am not in a position to say when it will be ready. It is a highly complex matter of major Government policy which has not been lost sight of.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman remember the promise which he made in the early part of the Session, and is it the intention of the Government not to carry out any of their promises?

SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, before accepting the offer of £35,000 from the Union Government for the promotion of development schemes in the South African Protectorates, the High Commissioner consulted the resident commissioners of the respective, territories as to the probable effect of this policy on native opinion; and whether they were instructed to take any steps in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Yes, Sir. The resident commissioners were consulted beforehand by the High Commissioner, and it was arranged that they should communicate a statement explaining and commending the proposals to the native authorities.

Mr. GRENFELL: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the communications between the


acting High Commissioner for South Africa and the Prime Minister of the Union with regard to the Prime Minister's pronouncement on the South African Protectorates; and, if not, when he hopes to be in a position to do so?

Mr. MacDONALD: The acting High Commissioner is still in communication with General Hertzog on this matter. If the hon. Member will repeat his question next week I expect to be in a position to make a statement then.

EMPIRE MIGRATION.

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the continued excess of British home-comers as compared with British emigrants in 1935, he can state the reasons for this return of emigrants; and whether the majority of these home-comers have been unsuccessful in business or agriculture, or what other reasons exist?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The reasons for the migration movement into the United Kingdom are various, and I am afraid that it is not possible within the limits of an answer to a question to describe them in detail. They vary from people returning to this country to retire after a successful life overseas to people returning owing to a failure to settle overseas during the economic depression. I should point out that the annual inward movement on the whole has not varied a great deal in volume since 1921, but that in the last few years it has shown a slight but progressive decrease. The excess to which my hon. Friend refers is explained by the fall in the figures of outward migration roughly from 107,000 in 1929 to 24,000 in 1935, due mainly to the unfavourable economic conditions which have prevailed overseas in recent years.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES, HOSTELS).

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the nature of the new provision in the Southern Rhodesia Natives Registration Act which applies to the control and regulation of natives seeking employment in, or visiting, certain townships?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the new provision relating to the establishment of hostels. The effect of this is that if and when the Government erects, equips and maintains a hostel in any township for the accommodation of natives seeking employment in or visiting the township, thereafter any native so visiting the township and wishing to stay a night shall (subject to certain exceptions) reside in the hostel.

Mr. PALING: Do any of these disabilities and regulations which are imposed on the natives apply to white people also?

Mr. MacDONALD: So far as this Act is concerned, they apply to the natives.

Mr. PALING: How many of these proclaimed areas are there in the territory?

Mr. MacDONALD: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is this the same Measure that provides for licensed concubinage?

Mr. MacDONALD: I should require notice of that question also.

Mr. BELLENGER: Will these hostels be free to natives?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINA.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange that the Anglo-Argentine trade agreement shall not be renewed to cover a long term and that it shall contain a break clause, for review at short intervals, to enable His Majesty's Government to prevent harsh treatment of Anglo-Argentine public utility concerns?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I will keep my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Sir J. NALL: In view of the importance of the Argentine agreement to British industries, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any indication that the Argentine Government are prepared to carry on the agreement with provisions which would meet certain of the points which have been raised?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any announcement at the present moment, but conversations are proceeding day by day with the Argentine representatives, and that is one of the points which we have before us.

Sir J. NALL: Is there any reason to suppose that it will not be possible to renew the agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would not care to say that at the present moment.

Mr. LEVY: Before the agreement is renewed or revised, will the House have some indication of its provisions, so that we may not be called upon to ratify it without knowing anything at all about the bargain that has been made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That question has been put to me and to the Prime Minister several times, and there is nothing further which I can add to the answers which have been given.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Can we expect reasonable treatment from the Argentine Government, in view of the policy of the Government of this country in taxing beef?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the breaking principle is applied, so that the agreement may not be carried on indefinitely?

BLAST FURNACES (SPECIAL AREAS).

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many blast furnaces are out of blast in each of the Special Areas, showing each area separately, and the total output possible of pig-iron per year if the furnaces were restarted in the Special Areas?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make representations to the Special Commissioners with regard to the blast furnaces which are not in blast in the Special Areas, in view of the fact that there are heavy importations of pig iron?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a different question. I was asked for the figures with regard to the number of blast furnaces, and I have given them in a full table.

Following is the answer:

The following statement, which has been furnished by the British Iron and Steel Federation, shows the number of idle blast furnaces in each of the counties comprising the Special Areas and their approximate annual capacity if it were possible to work them. It should be noted, however, that none of the furnaces now idle has been in operation for the last five years and that many have been idle for 10 years or more and can only be regarded as obsolete.

County.
Number of Furnaces.
Approximate Annual Capacity.




Tons.


Durham … …
10
476,000


Cumberland …
3
312,000


Glamorgan … …
2
89,200


Monmouth … …
5
384,800


Ayr … … …
14
210,000


Lanark (excluding Glasgow).
36
670,600


Stirling … …
2
67,600


Total …
72
2,210,200

TINPLATE INDUSTRY, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of tinplate mills operating in South Wales and the number of persons employed; and also the quantity of tinplate manufactured and exported in each year from 1928 to 1935, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The number of tinplate mills in operation in Wales and Monmouthshire at those works in respect of which returns were made to the Ministry of Labour for the week ended 23rd May, 1036, was 298; the estimated number of insured workers (aged 16–64) in the industry in that area at July, 1935 (the latest date for which the information is available) was 25,720; the number recorded as unemployed at May, 1936, was 8,119.
The following statement shows the production of tinned plates and sheets in the United Kingdom in 1930, 1933 and 1934 and the exports in each year from 1928 to 1935.

Year.
Production (a).
Exports.



Tons.
Tons.


1928 … …
—
524,900


1929 … …
—
568,800


1930 … …
710,300
498,200


1931 … …
—
394,400


1932 … …
—
456,400


1933 … …
669,500
448,400


1934 … …
627,900
381,800


1935 … …
—
339,500

(a) According to information furnished in connection with the Census of Production, 1930, and the Import Duties Act Inquiries, 1933 and 1934. Comparable particulars for the other years specified are not available.

ITALY (BRITISH CREDITORS).

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps the Government propose to take to see that British commercial creditors are paid for goods shipped to Italy; will priority of payment be given to such creditors; and will the Government see that the debts contracted in sterling are liquidated in sterling;
(2) whether all payments to Italy by British importers are made through the Bank of England, or whether any payments have been made direct since the Anglo-Italian Payments Agreement was signed; and, if so, how much;
(3) what is the total amount owing to British exporters by Italian importers; and what was the total amount owing by British importers to Italian exporters?

Mr. RANKIN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is at present outstanding the sum of approximately £1,300,000 due from Italian sources to British commercial creditors in this country; and what steps are to be taken, following the removal of sanctions, to provide for the payment of this sum?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of taking all possible steps to see that United Kingdom exporters are paid for goods shipped to Italy and that debts contracted in sterling are liquidated. I have no complete statement of the total amount due to British exporters by Italian importers, but, as the hon. Members will have observed from the published accounts, the sums deposited by

Italian importers under the Payments Agreement and not yet transferred to creditors in the United Kingdom amount approximately to £1,300,000. Under the Anglo-Italian Payments Agreement of April, 1935, the sterling received from Italian imports into the United Kingdom has been utilised to pay such debts prior to 18th November, 1935. It was not obligatory for payments by United Kingdom importers to be made to the sterling account of the Bank of England. I am not in a position to state the amounts remitted direct to Italian exporters. Since the 18th November, 1935, it has been obligatory to make such payments to the Controller of Anglo-Italian Debts, and the total amount so paid has been approximately £600,000. The question, of future arrangements is under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to make a further statement very shortly.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all debts owing to this country have, under an Italian decree, to be paid to a certain bank, that they are paid in non-interest-bearing deposits, and that the risk of loss on the rate of exchange has to be borne by the British exporters? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put pressure on the Italian Government either to pay interest from the date of deposits or to see that British exporters really get a fair deal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of any specific case, I shall be happy to go into it.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: ; Will the right lion. Gentleman tell the House, also, why he cannot give the figures of the amounts owing to British exporters? If the Italian Government insist on every penny being paid into a block account, what is the reason why pressure cannot be brought to bear on the Italian Government to state the amount?

FOREIGN SHIPPING (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade the latest information he has as to how, and on what conditions, the Italian, French, and German Governments assist their nationals in financing the construction and insurance of liners and other ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a statement on this subject in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these Powers are very much more generous in their treatment of their shipping companies as regards insurance cover than we are?
Following is the statement:
The following paragraphs briefly sumcarise such information as is available regarding measures now in operation for granting direct financial assistance for the construction and insurance of merchant ships in Italy, France and Germany. It will be appreciated that complete information on such subjects cannot be obtained in all cases.
Italy.
Construction.—In addition to direct construction bounties the Italian Government facilitate the provision of funds from which loans can be obtained for the construction of vessels in Italy, and make substantial contributions towards the interest charged on such loans.
Insurance.—No complete information is available, but assistance was given by the Italian Government in respect of the insurance of the vessels "Rex" and "Conte di Savoia" while under construction.
France.
Construction.—In addition to special measures of assistance to individual French Shipping Companies (notably the Compagnie Generale Transatlantique and the Compagnie de Navagation Sud-Atlantique) to enable them to construct certain large and fast vessels, the French Government facilitate the provision of funds from which loans can be obtained for the construction of vessels in France, and make substantial contributions towards the interest charged on such loans.
Insurance.—No complete information is available, but it is understood that the building risk of the "Normandie" was insured partly in the open market and partly by the Government, and that the Government took over the insurance of the marine risk so far as it was not covered by the market.
Germany.
Construction.—No information is available as to any general scheme being now in operation for assisting the building of ships in Germany, but the German Government are stated to be financing new building by certain of the Germany shipping lines. No details of these transactions are, however, available.

PROPOSED IRON AND STEEL WORKS, JARROW.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the conflict of evidence with regard to the proposed steelworks at Jarrow, the favourable nature of the original expert opinion, and the important issues involved, he will arrange for the institution of an impartial inquiry into all the facts?

Sir JOHN JARVIS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the widespread uncertainty regarding the reasons for the failure of the Jarrow steelworks plan, he will have an independent investigation made to ascertain the facts, especially having regard to the exceptional need for employment in this distressed area?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they would welcome the establishment of an iron and steel works at Jarrow, if the interests concerned could agree upon a scheme which was commercially sound. The Government have also stated that they could not see their way to provide public money in order to influence the setting-up of an iron and steel works either at Jarrow or elsewhere. Such a course would be contrary to their declared policy of leaving the decisions as to the proper technical organisation of an industry to those engaged in it. The facts relating to the Jarrow scheme have been fully set out in the statement issued by the British Iron and Steel Federation. In the light of this statement I do not think that there can be any doubt as to the reasons which unfortunately led to the conclusion by the interests, which it was proposed should establish an iron and steel works at Jarrow, that such a works could not be established by them on a commercially sound basis. I do not, therefore, think that any purpose would be served by the further inquiry suggested by the hon. Members.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and of the very serious situation in Jarrow, would he be prepared to receive an influential deputation from Jarrow at a near convenient date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be very glad to see a deputation from Jarrow if they can bring fresh information on the subject. I will try to arrange for an early date.

Sir J. JARVIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report made to the Iron and Steel Federation by their consultant last August which made reference to the proposed steel works at Jarrow and, if so, can that report be reconciled with the statements made by the federation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have read all the published documents on the subject. I shall be very glad to consider any new material that is forthcoming, but I cannot go back into the reconciling of what appears to me to be ancient history.

SHIPBUILDING MATERIAL (IMPORT).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the assistance given by the State to shipping and the improved conditions generally in the shipping world, he will consider the desirability of taking action to restrict the facilities under which shipyards have hitherto been allowed to import their material free of duty?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. The facilities to which my hon. Friend refers are granted under Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, and I see no reason to propose the repeal of that Section.

Mr. SMITH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that circumstances have materially altered since these facilities were granted?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, and I hope they have changed for the better in the iron and steel industry.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give information as to the countries of origin of these goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is another question on that subject.

LANCASHIRE.

Mr. PARKINSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the number of works closed down in Lancashire in the cotton, coal, iron and steel industries, during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935; stating the number of persons who have lost their employment as a consequence in each case, separately;
(2) the number of new industries that have been established in Lancashire during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935, stating the nature of such industries and the number of persons employed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am having statements prepared, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that everything is being done to help Lancashire?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are doing everything we can.

COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. BURKE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the imports of Japanese grey cloth for dyeing and finishing in this country; whether he is aware that large quantities of this cloth in the finished state finds it way into British markets, such as Egypt; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this menace to Lancashire's cotton trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second and third parts, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers on this subject which I gave on 28th April and 5th May last to the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach). At the same time, to avoid possible misapprehensions, I would point out that Egypt is not a British country.

Mr. BURKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the exports of cotton piece goods have dropped 50 per cent., and does he not think it is time the Government announced a policy, as other Departments have done, with regard to cotton?

Mr. LEVY: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have taken many steps for dealing with the problems of the cotton industry, but we cannot pretend that they are coming to fruition at once.

Mr. BURKE: In view of the widespread distress, is it not high time that something was done for the cotton industry?

Mr. LEVY: May I put my question now.

Mr. SPEAKER: There have already been several supplementary questions and we must get on with the questions on the Paper.

Mr. LEVY: It is very important.

Mr. BURKE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the report made by the Commercial Counsellor to the British Embassy at Buenos Aires on the future prospects of Lancashire textile exports to the Argentine due to Japanese competition in cotton piece-goods; and what steps he proposes to take in order to remove the anxiety felt in Lancashire because of the uncertainty of future trade relations between the United Kingdom and the Argentine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Member no doubt knows that trade negotiations with Argentina are in progress. The interests of the cotton industry are certainly being kept in mind in this connection.

Mr. BURKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Argentine there are particularly favourable conditions for Lancashire trade and, having in mind the fact that in other markets we are prejudiced by Japanese competition, will he handle this question with particular sympathy, not only in the interests of the Lancashire cotton trade, but of the Yorkshire woollen trade and of the consumers of the country generally.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have had that in mind in the discussions we have had with the Argentine representatives.

Mr. LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these goods are being exported labelled and stamped as of British manufacture, and they are not manufactured in this country at all?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is not the subject of the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it on the Paper.

Mr. LEVY: It ought to have been a supplementary to No. 38.

TEXTILE IMPORTS.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider a levy on textile goods coming into the country, as was proposed in connection with beef imports from the Argentine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. Textile goods are already subject to import duties.

COMPANY LAW.

Mr. OWEN EVANS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on numerous occasions public bodies representing commerce and finance have asked for a review of the Companies Act, 1929, in order that the public may be protected against misuse of the limited liability system, as disclosed in recent scandals; and whether he will reconsider his decision and arrange for an early re-examination of the 1929 Act?

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Board already possesses a great quantity of material showing the inefficiency of some of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1929; and, as it will take at least two years to examine and report upon the material, will he at an early date appoint a departmental committee to begin the examination and call witnesses?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the representations that have been made from time to time in favour of a fresh inquiry into company law. As I have previously stated, I am not convinced that the time is ripe for such an inquiry, but it is my intention again to examine the question in all its bearings before the end of the year. In the meantime material is accumulating, and is being examined as and when opportunity offers.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the public bodies to which he has referred have already expressed their


opinion that there is no justification for the delay in setting up a departmental committee to deal with this matter?

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the evidence accumulated in his Department, the publication of the material which is coming forward, in order that the public may be advised of the importance of this question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper in those terms, I will do my best to give him an answer.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask how big a scandal will be necessary before the time is ripe?

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has just given practically amounts to an invitation to certain large-scale swindlers to continue swindling the public?

STOCK AND SHARE DEALERS.

Mr. HANNAH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of recent revelations about outside stock and share dealers, he will introduce legislation for the compulsory registration of all outside dealers, thus insuring some control over their activities?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 29th June to the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Touche) and North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), and in reply to Questions Nos. 24 and 25 to-day.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman not to deal with this specific question until the general revision of the Companies Act?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not this interference with private enterprise becoming somewhat alarming?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

EDA GROINA SHOAL, ORKNEY.

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners has been drawn to the

urgent need for a lighted buoy at Eda Groina Shoal, Veeness, Eday, Orkney; and, if so, what action they propose to take?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed by the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners that they have already had the matter under consideration, and that, on the information before them, they are not prepared to mark the Eda Groina Shoal by a lighted buoy.

STEAMSHIP "HELENA MARGARETA."

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of British nationals employed on the steamship "Helena Margareta," owned by the Euxine Shipping Company; whether the officers and crew are being paid wages in accordance with the National Maritime Board rates; how much subsidy has been paid to this company in respect of this, or any other, of their vessels; and what was the date of the last Board of Trade survey of the steamship "Helena, Margareta"?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The crew of the steamship "Helena Margareta" when engaged at Rotterdam on 27th August, 1935, consisted of aliens of various nationalities, with the exception of a British wireless operator. The agreement did not provide for the payment of National Maritime Board scales of pay. No subsidy has been paid to the Euxine Shipping Company in respect of this or any other of their vessels. The ship was measured for tonnage purposes by Board of Trade surveyors in August and December last. A load line certificate was issued on behalf of the Board by Lloyd's Register after survey in August last.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an eye on ships registered in this country which use every possible means of avoiding paying trade union rates and employ foreign seamen?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If they sign on in the ports of this country we have much more control over them than if they sign on elsewhere. We try to encourage that as much as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in any literature issued appealing for recruits to the


Army, the precise objects for which the prospective soldiers would be asked to fight are clearly outlined; and whether the basis of the Government's foreign policy is in this connection indicated in a way that can be clearly understood by recruits?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. MANDER: Do not the Government realise that it will be very difficult for them to get recruits on the basis of their foreign policy, or lack of policy?

Viscountess ASTOR: Could the Government ask the League of Nations Union if they explain to those who join them whom they are going to fight and what they are going to fight with?

Sir W. BRASS: Is it not a fact that recruits are asked for to defend their country?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Oath of Allegiance taken by recruits is adequate in the same way as the Oath of Allegiance taken by Members of this House in regard to their duties?

STRENGTH (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. LOGAN: asked the Secretary of State for War the present strength of His Majesty's Forces at present in Northern Ireland?

Mr. COOPER: The strength of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland on 1st June was 3,223.

Mr. LOGAN: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a pastoral letter issued by the Protestant Bishop of Down and Connor and also the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor as to the possibility of disturbances on 12th July, and does he think that, on account of these recurring disturbances, His Majesty's Government will be able on that date to maintain law and order?

Mr. COOPER: I have not seen the letter.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a state of panic

now in Northern Ireland and that all parties are anxious to keep the peace, and as only His Majesty's troops are able to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland, will he see that necessary steps are taken.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman a close observer of ecclesiastical statements?

Mr. LOGAN: May I have a reply, because all parties in Northern Ireland are anxious to know what His Majesty's Government intend to do to keep the peace on that occasion?

Mr. COOPER: I understand from the hon. Member that he is afraid of a breach of the peace, and he desires the strengthening of the garrison in order to maintain order. I can assure him that the British Army is busy all over the world at the present time in maintaining order and peace. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends would encourage recruiting, we should be in a better position to do it.

Mr. LOGAN: As my three sons were in the Army, I think that that remark is rather uncalled for, and as I am anxious for peace and order to be kept by His Majesty's subjects, I am asking what action, if any, the Minister is going to take to see that peace is maintained in Northern Ireland.

HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: The Secretary for War cannot keep peace while the troops are fed on margarine.

BANDSMEN (PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large number of male unemployed in the theatrical profession and among civilian musicians, he will consider further restricting the employment of serving soldiers, military bandsmen and military bands for other than military and official functions?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. I am satisfied that existing instructions already restrict so far as is necessary the acceptance of private engagements by soldiers in their spare time. As regards the employment of Army bands I see no reason, in view of the public demand, to alter the present


policy which permits the acceptance of private engagements at, or above, rates which have been fixed with due regard to local civilian rates.

Mr. DAY: Is the Minister aware that many soldiers have been accepting engagements in the West End lately and thus keeping civilians out of employment?

FOOD SUPPLY.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion on the food supply of this country and an examination into the repeated destruction of supplies of food that could be made of use under a better system of organisation?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As, no doubt, the hon. Member is aware, this subject will be debated tomorrow on the Motion which has been tabled by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

FOREIGN POLICY (DOMINION GOVERNMENTS).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability, in view of the wide divergence of policy expressed by different members of the British Commonwealth of Nations at the recent Assembly of the League of Nations, of consultations to secure greater unity and co-ordination?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies on this subject which I gave on 6th May, and to the statement which I made in the course of the Debate on 23rd June.

Mr. MANDER: Would it not have been much more in the interests of Empire unity if the Government had followed the courageous lead given by the New Zealand and South African Governments at Geneva recently?

Mr. SANDYS: In view of the seriousness of the question, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of discussing with the Dominion Governments the possibility of obtaining closer co-ordination on foreign policy?

GERMAN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking as there is now an annual credit balance on Anglo-German transactions in favour of Germany, which would enable her to provide in cash the contractual sterling sinking funds on the British issue of the 1930 Young Loan and the full debt services on German long-term municipal loans issued in London; and whether, failing a satisfactory re-arrangement to utilise the sterling credit balances for the benefit of British holders of German defaulted obligations, he will operate the dormant Anglo-German exchange clearing?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government support the claims of British holders of German obligations to receive the full amounts to which they are entitled as soon as circumstances permit. Existing arrangements which by agreement will continue until the end of the present year have been recognised by the Bondholders Committee to be the best obtainable in the circumstances, and it does not therefore appear that any further steps can usefully be taken by the Government in the matter at the present time.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is very unsatisfactory and very disturbing that this very large balance is allowed to lie in the hands of Germany, when he knows, and everybody knows, that this money is being used for increased armaments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend must not expect me to accept the view of the situation which he has put forward, but I agree that the position is always very unsatisfactory when people do not pay their debts.

IMPORTED HORSES.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an application by the National Horse Association of Great Britain for the imposition of an import duty on certain categories of horses imported into this country has been before the Import Duties Advisory Committee


since February; and whether he is satisfied that this committee has adequate staff at its disposal to enable it to deal with the applications made to it in a reasonably expeditious manner?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the delay in the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has been due to the desire on the part of the committee to obtain further information as to the views of those most concerned and that this has only recently reached them. I have no reason to suppose that the committee's staff is not adequate for the purposes they have to fulfil.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of the importance of this matter to the horse-breeding industry of this country, suggest to the board the desirability of trying to come to an early decision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The fact that it is so important makes it very necessary that full information should be in the hands of those who have to make recommendations, and now that they have got that information, I have no reason to suppose that there will be any further delay.

TRUSTEE SECURITIES (OVERSEA ISSUES).

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will request the Committee on Oversea Issues to consider the advisability of making it a condition of issue, in order to balance any proposal to reduce contractual interest by borrowers who do not want to repudiate anything, that future loans intended for addition to the Treasury list of trustee securities under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, must include a contract to increase interest when money becomes dearer than it was when the borrowers obtained their loan in Britain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Questions affecting rates of interest are not within the purview of the Foreign Transactions (Advisory) Committee.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will my right hon. Friend see to it that New Zealand are informed that they cannot have it both ways?

TAXES (ARREARS OF PAYMENT).

Mr. PARKINSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of arrears of taxation for the years 1933, 1934, and 1935 at the end of each financial year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is only in respect of Income Tax and Surtax that estimates can be furnished of the kind asked for by the hon. Member. In the case of both taxes the amount in assessment at any point of time does not represent the tax that will be ultimately due and payable inasmuch as many of the assessments are provisional in character and subject to adjustment. In the case of Income Tax the only estimate that can be given of the arrear at the end of the financial year is the amount of tax in assessment which is expected to be collected during the ensuing financial year ane the figures for the end of the years 1933–34, 1934–35 and 1935–36 are £20,000,000, £17,500,000 and £16,500,000, respectively. In the case of Surtax the amount of tax in assessment at the end of the financial year which will ultimately prove to be collectible is estimated to have been £11,000,000, £9,000,000 and £7,500,000 at the end of the financial years 1933–34, 1934–35 and 1935–36.

FORESTRY COMMISSION WORKERS (WAGES).

53. Mr. WHITELEY: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the recent advance of 2s. per week granted by the Durham Agricultural Wages Board will apply to those who are engaged by the Forestry Commissioners whose present wages are based on agricultural rates of pay?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The rate fixed by the Durham Agricultural Wages Committee is now 31s. per week. The minimum rate for Forestry Commission workers is 35s. per week.

Mr. WHITELEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these forestry workers' wages are under signed agreement to move with the rise and fall of agricultural wages, and, surely, if there has been an increase of 2s., they are entitled under that agreement to receive that 2s., and will he make inquiries into the matter?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The hon. Member is mistaken. The Forestry Commission minimum is a national minimum, and not a local one.

FILM INDUSTRY (ALIEN MUSICAL CONDUCTOR).

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Minister of Labour, with regard to the labour permit granted to Efrem Kurtz, an alien musical conductor, to work in the British film industry, what steps were taken to ensure that no British film musical conductor was available and competent to perform the work?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): The permission to Mr. Efrem Kurtz to take employment in the film industry is limited to a particular post for a short period. It was granted on account of his special qualifications. He was required not merely as a conductor, but also as a collaborator in the recording of the music.

Mr. LIDDALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least two highly experienced British musical conductors are available, and as at the present time there are over 100 foreign technicians working in the British film industry, while about the same number of British technicians are unemployed, will the Minister assure the House that in future working permits will not be granted for

Payments of Unemployment Allowances according to


Employment Exchange.
Total number on registers.
Payments of Unemployment Benefit.
Transitional Payments practice.
Unemployment Assistance Regulations.


Llanelly … …
3,304(a)
1,739
685
473


Ammanford … …
1,304
1,495(b)
178
125


Garnant … …
1,522
532
510
340


Tumble … … …
632
405
77
55


Kidwelly … …
812
411
185
127


Carmarthen … …
578
219
104(c)
35(c)

Payments made through Associations are not included.

(a) Excluding unemployed persons attending the Brechfa instructional centre and neighbouring summer camps.

(b) Including payments to persons who were not on the Register at 22nd June, 1936.

(c) In addition, there were 86 postal payments of which analysis is not at present available.

foreign technicians to work in the British film industry as long as competent British technicians are available?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons registered, on the last available date, at each of the following Employment Exchanges: Llanelly, Ammanford, Garnant, Tumble, Kidwelly, and Carmarthen; the number of such persons who are in receipt of standard benefit; the number who are in receipt of transitional payments; and the number paid allowances in accordance with the scale of the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The following table shows the total numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges in question on Monday, 22nd Tune, 1936, and the numbers of payments made at these Exchanges in the week ended Friday, 26th June, 1936. The numbers of payments during the week do not necessarily relate to the numbers registered as unemployed on the Monday in that week.

ASSISTANCE (ABERDARE).

Mr. G. HALL: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who come under the Unemployment Assistance Board in the Aberdare area and the number receiving assistance under the regulations, with those receiving transitional benefit under the standstill order?

Mr. E. BROWN: The available statistics relate to the area of the Aberdare Employment Exchange. On 22nd June, 1936, there were 3,723 persons on the register with applications for unemployment allowances, including 23 persons whose needs were held not to justify payment. Allowances were paid in accordance with the Unemployment Assistance Regulations in 1,280 cases and in accordance with transitional payments practice in 2,420 cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether consideration has been given to the representations made to him and to the Minister of Transport by the National Joint Conciliation Board for the road motor transport industry (goods) with regard to the non-observance in many instances of the rates of wages and conditions of service agreed upon by the Board; and what action it is proposed to take?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend and I have given careful consideration to the views of the National Conciliation Board and to other representations, and we are of opinion that it is desirable to consider the means by which the progress already made in the better regulation of the working conditions of road transport workers may be further advanced. Having regard to the complexity of the issues involved, we feel that it is necessary that the whole position should be carefully examined and we propose, therefore, to appoint a small committee of independent persons with the following terms of reference:
To examine the present position in regard to the regulation of wages and conditions of service of persons employed in connection with the carriage of goods by road (whether in vehicles authorised under 'A,' 'B' or 'C' licences) and to make recommendations as to the action which it is desirable to take.

Mr. LAWSON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, are not these companies operating under regular licences which lay it down that they have to pay the agreed wages, and is there any need to inquire into that matter?

Mr. BROWN: The position is much more complicated than that, and that is the reason for this action, which is agreed upon by members of the Board on both sides.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Is it not the fact that the Act is implicit that an inquiry shall be set up under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour, and that fair wages were to be so construed, and that these wages are not in fact generally being paid? I join in thanking the Minister for what he has said, but will he tell the House the date upon which this Committee is likely to meet?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot say that. As the hon. Member knows, this is the result of representations made to my right hon. Friend and myself by the Board.

MOTORING PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that during last year in the police division of Bacup there were 99 convictions for motoring offences, but in no case was a licence suspended or endorsed, whilst in the police division of Wigan there were 754 convictions for motoring offences and 612 licences were suspended or endorsed; and whether, in view of the variations in the administration of the law that these figures suggest, he will circularise magistrates explaining the meaning of Section 5 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, so as to secure uniformity in the administration of the law throughout the country?

The SECRETARY of STATE, for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am aware of the figures mentioned, which are included in Table III of the return presented to Parliament on 25th May. While it is right that courts should make proper use of the discretion vested in them in dealing with individual cases, I recognise that it is undesirable that there should be wide differences in the treatment of offenders in different localities, and a circular on the subject is in course of preparation.

Mr. TURTON: As it would appear that the magistrates find special reasons in every case they try, will the Home Secretary send an explanation of what "a special reason" means under Section 5?

Sir J. SIMON: The circular will be very carefully drawn up.

Mr. BELLENGER: Will the circular also deal with the discrepancies in the fines levied on motorists.

Sir J. SIMON: I have not quite decided on the scope of the circular.

MOTOR DRIVING TESTS.

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give instructions that, in cases where applicants for driving licences are in daytime employment, arrangements should be made for their driving tests to be conducted so as not to interfere with their working hours?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): As far as possible, steps are taken to meet the convenience of candidates who cannot for good reason attend during the examiners' normal working hours.

COLLECTIVE SECURITY.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will name the countries in concert with which His Majesty's Government is pursuing its policy of collective security?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The policy of His Majesty's Government as a member of the League of Nations is to apply, to the best of their ability, the principles of the Covenant collectively provided that the other members of the League are prepared to do the same.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Can the Noble Lord say whether any consultations are proceeding with any other countries at the present time on the question of collective security?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I have answered the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put on the Order

Paper. If he desires to put any further question, perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. RADFORD: Is the House to understand that collective liability on the part of this country is bound up with collective security?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Collective security involves collective liability.

MILK (SCHOOL-CHILDREN).

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the President of the Board of Education at how many schools in each of the following counties provision is made for the supply of milk to the school-children and the number of schools in each county for which no such provision is made: Carmarthenshire, Breconshire, Pembroke-shire, Cardiganshire, Glamorgan and Monmouth?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As the answer contains a tabular statement of figures, I shall, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Geographical County.
Number of Public Elementary School Department is which milk is supplied.
Number of Public Elementary School Departments in which no milk is supplied.


Carmarthenshire
203
30



Breconshire …
79
26


Pembrokeshire
71
82


Cardiganshire …
23
87


Glamorgan …
905
9


Monmouthshire
344
32


Total …
1,625
266

Note.—The 1,625 Departments providing milk consist of 1,547 in which liquid milk is supplied under the Milk in Schools Scheme and 78 in which either liquid milk or various preparations of dried milk are supplied outside the Scheme.

EGYPT (PROPAGANDA).

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any


reports on the existence of Italian propaganda and subversive activities aimed at undermining the British position in Egypt?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Reports of varying reliability of propaganda against the British position in Egypt have been received from time to time. The hon. Member may rest assured that His Majesty's Government keep a close watch on such activities whatever their origin.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present situation at Gambeila, in Ethiopia; what British representation exists there; and whether communications are open?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The enclave at Gambeila, which is leased by the Sudan Government as a Customs post, contains, in addition to the Customs officers, a police post which has recently been strengthened to a total of 75 men under a British officer. I have no detailed information with regard to the Abyssinian town of Gambeila, which is some little way from the enclave. I understand the situation to be that which has been recently described to the House, namely, that there exists considerable tension between the remaining Amhara officials and the Galla population. Communications from the Sudan with the Gambeila enclave, which at this season of the year are by water, are open. There is a road from the enclave to Gore which, according to my last report some weeks ago, cannot be regarded as safe for ordinary travellers without escort.

Mr. MANDER: Can the Under-Secretary say what steps are being taken to protect these British representatives?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I have already said that the police have been strengthened to 75 men under a British officer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. KIRBY: asked the Minister of Health the population of the city of Liverpool at 31st December, 1925, the

number of ordinary relief cases at the same date and the amount per annum paid in relief, the number of insured persons, and the percentage of insured workers unemployed, at the same date, and the comparable figures at 31st December, 1935?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): As the answer is long and contains a number of figures in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the desired information so far as it is available.
Following is the answer:
The Registrar-General's estimates of population relate to the middle of each year. The estimated population of the city of Liverpool was 856,000 in 1925 and 854,500 in 1935. Information is not available in regard to the number of persons in receipt of poor relief or the amount of out-relief in the city of Liverpool earlier than 31st March, 1930. The average number of persons (including dependants) not ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation who were in receipt of out-relief in the city of Liverpool during December, 1935, was 26,952, and the total expenditure on out-relief to this class in 1935 was £447,739. Particulars of the estimated number of insured persons are available in respect of July only in each year, and the figures relating to Employment Exchanges in the city of Liverpool are as follow:

—
Estimated number of insured persons in July.
Percentage unemployed in December.




Per cent.


1925 …
249,490*
14·9


1935 …
277,390†
22·2


* Aged 16 and over.


† Aged 16 to 64.

GLAMORGAN.

Mr. MAINWARING: asked the Minister of Health what the population of the administrative county of Glamorgan was in the years 1921 and 1925, respectively, together with the number of ordinary relief cases and the amount paid, the number of insured


workers and the percentage of unemployed, the number of extraordinary relief cases dealt with, and the amount paid during each of the years mentioned?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the desired information so far as it is available.
Following is the answer:
The estimated population of the administrative county of Glamorgan was 827,658 in the middle of 1921 and 843,400 in the middle of 1925. Information is not available in regard to the number of persons in receipt of poor relief or the amount of out-relief in the county earlier than 31st March, 1930. The estimated number of insured persons (aged 16 and over) was 233,950 in July, 1925, and the percentage of unemployed was 19.8. Corresponding figures for 1921 are not available.

REGIONAL WATER COMMITTEES.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister of Health whether statutory powers will be given to regional water committees, and will they later be extended to the joint committees in certain areas and ultimately to a central unifying authority, to co-ordinate plans and policy and prevent overlapping and inefficiency?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Joint Select Committee on Water Resources and Supplies are at present considering the measures required for the better conservation and organisation of water resources and supplies. The questions raised are matters for consideration when the findings of the joint committee have been issued.

THE LEVEL, BRIGHTON.

Mr. MESSER: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the piece of ground known as The Level, at Brighton, which was a gift to the public has been let by the Brighton Corporation for purposes other than those contained in the conditions of the gift; and will he take steps to safeguard the rights of the public in this matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has no information on this matter, but he is making inquiries.

PLAYING FIELDS.

Mr. JOEL: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider suggesting to local authorities the examination of the number of playing fields in their respective areas with the object of ascertaining their adequacy and, in case of need, ensuring their increase?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Rapid progress is already being made in the improvement of the provision of playing fields in this country, and my right hon. Friend does not think that in these circumstances the course suggested is necessary.

Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing that even now there are great areas where there will be no playing-fields unless the Government take action, does the hon. Member not think that it is time that the Government had a policy in regard to playing-fields as well as in regard to sugar-beet and other things?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Noble Lady will appreciate that it is part of the duty of the local authority to take this question into consideration in drawing up their plans. Last year we had a record in the number of playing-fields provided by local authorities.

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, but seeing that some local authorities are not doing anything, are the Government going to allow these housing estates to be developed with no provision for the children in regard to playing facilities, and does the hon. Member not think that unless the Government take steps nationally there will be no adequate provisions?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the Minister aware that there has been a considerable amount of popular indignation over this question, owing to the fact that nothing has been done?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the Prime Minister state the business for Thursday, and how far it is proposed to go to-night on the assumption that we suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday the Colonial Office Vote will be considered in Committee of Supply. We are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule tonight as a precautionary measure. We desire to get the Report stage and Third Reading of the Midwives Bill and the Second Reading of the three following Orders: the Old Age Pensions Bill [Lords], the National Health Insurance Bill [Lords] and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill [Lords]. These Bills have come from another place and have been considered by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. Afterwards, we shall take the Import Duties Orders which relate to the duty on potatoes.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it intended to take the Colonial Office Vote in general, or on

any particular item of Colonial administration?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that it will be taken in general.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say when he intends to take the Malta Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 129.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Agnew, Lieut:-Comdr. P. G.
Crooke, J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Albery, Sir I. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cross, R. H.
Holdsworth, H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Holmes, J. S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Assheton, R.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Culverwell, C. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir P.
Hulbert, N. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
De Chair, S. S.
Hunter, T.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
De la Bère, R.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Denman, Hon. R. D.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Donner, P. W.
Joel, D. J. B.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Keeling, E. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Dugdale, Major T.
L. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Duggan, H. J.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Blindell, Sir J.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Latham, Sir P.


Bossom, A. C.
Ellis, Sir G.
Leckie, J. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Emery, J. F.
Leigh, Sir J.


Brass, Sir W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Entwistle, C. F.
Llddall, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.


Bull, B. B.
Everard, W. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Findlay, Sir E.
Loftus, P. C.


Burghley, Lord
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Furness, S. N.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Butler, R. A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lyons, A. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Cary, R. A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goldie, N. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Channon, H.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Granville, E. L.
McKie, J. H.


Christie, J. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cook. T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)




Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Nall, Sir J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tate, Mavis C.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Salt, E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Touche, G. C.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Turton, R. H.


Patrick, C. M.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Peat, C. U.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Warrender, Sir V.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sandys, E. D.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Scott, Lord William
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Petherick, M.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wells, S. R.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Pilkington, R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Radford, E. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smithers, Sir W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wise, A. R.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Spears, Brig.-Gen, E. L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.



Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hardle, G. D.
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Banfield, J. W.
John, W.
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A.


Barr, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Compton, J.
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Inca)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. Mcl.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, E[...]len


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.



Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Minutes of Evidence from the Select Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Housing Bill (pending in the Lords), brought up and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Private Legislation Pro-


cedure (Scotland) Bill (pending in the Lords), brought up and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MEASUREMENT OF GAS.

Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Second Report from the Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

First Report from the Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

AIR SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1936).

Copy presented,—of Estimate of the additional personnel and the further sum required to be voted for Air Services for the year ending 31st March, 1937 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1936).

Copy presented,—of Estimate of the further sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1937 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Retail Meat Dealers (Sunday Closing) Bill,

Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act to consolidate with amendments

certain enactment relating to public health." [Public Health Bill Lords.]

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL (LORDS).

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Orders of the Day — MIDWIVES BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.58 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move:
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 1, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Kingsley Wood.
During the discussions in the Committee stage everyone was in agreement that if it were possible to have a longer period than 10 days as the period of attendance of a woman as a maternity nurse, it would be advisable. This particular period was, in the first instance, decided by the Central Midwives Board subject to the approval of the Minister of Health, but the Central Midwives Board propose to extend the period, as was suggested by hon. Members, and it will shortly receive my approval. In these circumstances my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking that we would put down before the Report stage an Amendment to the effect that the period of attendance of a woman as a maternity nurse should correspond to the period which from time to time might be laid down by the Central Midwives Board for the attendance of midwives. That is in accordance with the pledge given and with the unanimous view of hon. Members. I am asking for the Bill to be recommitted because it will ultimately increase the minimum period of attendance on each case by a salaried midwife when acting as a maternity nurse.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out "in the name of Sir Kingsley Wood."
The Amendment is to delete the name of Sir Kingsley Wood. I almost wish we could delete him in many other respects. But that, of course, is not the real purpose of my Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with an important point. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, we are not quite happy about the method he is to employ to implement the

promise made by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Standing Committee. Very briefly the story is this: In the Bill in the first instance it was laid down that a maternity nurse should spend a minimum period of 10 days on a confinement. We proposed that the period should be a minimum of 15 days. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of his chief—we got on upstairs very much better without his chief, and I am not sure whether we would not get on better to-day without him, though that is by the way—was good enough to say that our proposal to increase the 10 days to a 15 days minimum would be dealt with by the method now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Quite frankly I do not think that the Minister himself ought to be happy as to the method to be employed in laying down the minimum number of days that the midwife is to be in attendance at a confinement.
I have looked up Section 3 of the 1902 Act, to which the Amendment refers, and I cannot see, except in two lines, where the Midwives Board in laying down rules can deal with this problem at all. Let me read the two germane provisions. The only way in which they can deal with the problem that we are debating is in paragaph (e) of Section 3, which says that the Midwives Board shall regulate, supervise and restrict within due limits the practice of midwives. I cannot see how the 15 days minimum can come in there. In the last few lines of the last paragraph of all there are these words:
and generally to do any other act or duty which may be necessary for the due and proper carrying out of the provisions of this Act.
My first question is this: Where under Section 3 of that Act is the Midwives Board going to lay down any rule that the minimum period of attendance at a confinement shall be either 14 or 15 days? It seems to us that if the board is allowed to lay down 10 days the situation is not satisfactory. Then I come to the next argument—that we are not supposed to lay down all these details in an Act of Parliament. We regard this at any rate as something more than a detail. We think that the number of days' attendance of a midwife should be more than 10, and the general impression that we have got from the Government


is that they too thought 10 days were enough. We had a long battle of words in Committee upon this problem. I do not think that I would be doing wrong if I repeated one or two of the arguments that we employed in Committee. The Minister tells us that we ought to leave this business to the Midwives Board, but we decline to agree that we ought to farm out this provision to any board. It is a problem for Parliament itself. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a detail. When he was a very competent authority on National Health Insurance in the first instance every detail imaginable was laid down in the Bill. The three days waiting period is there, and the number of weeks to qualify for benefit is there, and when the Ministry want to make any change at all in details the Orders have to be laid on the Table of the House. We, therefore, say that we are not satisfied to have this very important provision farmed out to the Midwives Board in their settlement of rules for this purpose.
We shall divide on this issue for another and fundamental reason. We would like very much to extend the monetary provisions of the Bill. The Bill really is a very petty contribution to a very important problem. I shall have something to say later of the hon. Member's recent speech in Liverpool. I wish the Ministers of this Government related some of their enthusiastic speeches in the country to the laws that they propound on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman tries to laugh that off with contempt, but he is not succeeding very well. We want to carry this Amendment which will give us the same opportunity of extending the provisions of Clause 1 as the Government seeks for its own purposes.

4.8 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: It may save a little time if I explain the legal position, which I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman finds it somewhat difficult to follow, as he has not the documents before him. The matter is perfectly simple. In Section 3 of the Midwives Act of 1902 the House will find it laid down as one of the duties and powers of the Midwives Board that they shall frame rules:
for regulating, supervising and restricting within due limits the practice of midwives,

and pursuant to that authority the following rule was made:
The midwives shall personally supervise and be responsible for the cleanliness, comfort and proper dieting of the mother and child during the lying-in period, which shall be held for the purpose of these regulations, and in a normal case, to mean the time occupied by the labour and a period of not less than ten clays thereafter.
In the Motion for recommittal that I have moved the House will secure all that is desired, inasmuch as the Midwives Board in pursuance of their responsibility will increase the period to a period of 14 days. That will receive my approval and by that means the desire of the House will be effected. On the other point which the hon. Gentleman raised, namely the desire to extend the recommittal of the Bill to other matters, I cannot advise the House to accept his Amendment. There is a considerable distinction, at any rate in my mind and that of others, between the recommittal of the Bill for the purpose of fulfilling a pledge and undertaking given by the Government and its recommittal for other matters which may be mentioned in other Amendments. I will call the attention of the House to a statement made by one whom we recognise as an authority on a matter of this kind. This is the statement; it is dated 16th May, 1935:
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one inaccuracy in what he has put to the House? He says that these two Amendments are in the same category as the matters which are to be recommitted by the Government. On his own statement they are not. The matters which the Government tells us this recommittal is required to meet are matters to carry out undertakings that were given in Committee. It is necessary, they say, because that could not be done formally at the time, to recommit in order that those undertakings may be carried out. But there was no undertaking regarding these Amendments. In fact, as I understand it, they were both definitely turned down without any undertaking, and there is all the difference in the world between the Government asking as a matter of convenience for recommittal in order that a matter may be put right, having regard to some undertakings which they have given, and their accepting an Amendment to reintroduce a discussion which normally would be completely out of order on the Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1935; col. 1926, Vol. 301.]
That is the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and upon it I


found my objection to the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I do not think that anything the Minister has said will lead Members on this side to alter their opinion with regard to the Amendment. We regard the Amendment as important. With the Clause recommitted we should be able to deal with other Amendments on the Paper than that of the Minister. That is important, because Clause 1 is a most important Clause of the Bill. With some parts of it we agree, but with other parts we cannot agree. I agree whole-heartedly with the proposal, in line 15 on page 1, that provision be made for the attendance on women in their own homes. The tendency is often to have mothers removed from their homes to nursing or maternity homes. In working-class houses where a mother is to be confined, there may be two or three young children, say of two years, four years and six years of age. It is absolutely essential that such a mother should be attended to in her own home, where her young children will ask for her and she can speak to them. It is all very well, in the case of wealthy families where the children may be under the care of nurses and will not miss their mother so much, to remove the mother to a nursing home, but in the working-class families it is a good thing to make provision for attendance upon mothers in their own homes.
There are other things in this Clause which are very debatable. There is the question whether the local authority should have the appointment of these midwives or whether the appointment should be made by local organisations. What we ought to aim at is to put this midwifery reform under the power of the local authorities. In Durham the county council spends large sums of money subsidising the nursing association for midwives. The Durham County Council paid to the Durham County Nursing Association, in respect of midwives, in 1931, £3,414; in 1932, £3,397; in 1933, £3,827; in 1934, £3,828; making in four years a total of no less than £14,467. I do not say that the County Nursing Association does not do its work well; indeed, I am prepared to pay my tribute of respect to it, but, in my opinion, that association ought to be relieved of this work and

ought to be able to devote its attention to nursing pure and simple. I believe that in order to ensure the effective carrying out of the nursing part of the work, it would be wise for the local authorities to give the nursing associations grants to assist them in the performance of that work, but so far as midwifery is concerned, I believe that it would be much better, seeing that the local authorities have to pay the money, for them to have charge of the midwives and supervision of them.
I emphasise this because, in spite of all the money that is being paid for midwifery services in the County of Durham, the maternal mortality rate is going up. I would mention that, in addition to the money which the Durham County Council has paid in subsidising midwives, and the amount it has had to pay to medical men who have been called in by the midwives in abnormal cases, the county council has spent not less than £10,000 a year during the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934. In spite of that large expenditure, the medical officer of health for Durham County says:
The maternal mortality rate in Durham is the cause of great anxiety, for, in spite of elaborate midwifery and maternity and child welfare services, the maternal mortality rate continues to rise.
That is a staggering fact. In 1934 the deaths were 5.75 per 1,000 births; in 1935, they were 6.87 deaths per 1,000 births.

Mr. PETHERICK: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in this respect? Some hon. Members would perhaps like to raise various matters concerning Clause 1. Would it be in order for them to do so in this discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment to leave out the words "in the name of Sir Kingsley Wood" covers the discussion on the whole of Clause 1. That is the argument in moving the Amendment. It is in order to discuss Clause 1 on this Amendment.

Mr. BATEY: I repeat that the deaths in the County of Durham in 1935 were 6.87 per 1,000 births, and the rate for England and Wales was only 3.93 deaths per 1,000 births, so that the rate in the County of Durham in 1935 was almost double that for the country as a whole. Therefore, I feel bound to ask the Minister whether in this Clause he is


going far enough in the attempt to prevent these deaths? We on this side have no hesitation in saying that the Minister needs to do something more than he is proposing to do here; he needs to have different and more important Amendments. We believe that the high rate in the County of Durham is due to malnutrition. Therefore, in moving to recommit this Clause and include one or two Amendments, I would have liked the Minister to face the real question and to see whether the Government could not do something to prevent the huge maternal mortality that we have in the County of Durham. I believe the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is an important one. It is that we should deal with the whole of this Clause, and not merely with the question of the lying-in period. I wish to support the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like it to be understood that when I said the Clause could be discussed, I meant it could only be discussed with regard to those Amendments which stand on the Paper.

Mr. BATEY: I quite agree, and therefore I deliberately left out a good deal that I wanted say.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. There are on the Paper two Amendments with regard to voluntary organisations in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and myself, which I understand you do not propose to call. Do I understand that they may be generally discussed during the discussion on Clause 1?

Mr. SPEAKER: Those Amendments may be discussed on Clause 1.

Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. Are any Amendments open to discussion even if they need not be re-committed? I submit that those Amendments which are to be discussed on the Report stage without recommittal are not capable of being discussed on the Motion to recommit the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that there is no qualification in the Motion, which says,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect to the Amendments in Clause 1, standing on the Notice Paper …

and if the last words "in the name of Sir Kingsley Wood" are left out, all the Amendments standing on the Notice Paper could be discussed.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I certainly would not attempt to minimise the importance of the matters to which the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) referred, but I would point out that, although in the opinion of the hon. Member the Government may not be going far enough, this Bill is in itself an attempt to deal with the problem of the maternal death rate. I think that what we are discussing here is primarily a question of procedure. The Bill has already passed through the Committee stage, and the recommittal of a Bill, although part of the normal procedure of the House, is generally undertaken to meet some special point. On this occasion it has been undertaken to meet a special case, and I was impressed by the argument of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman promised re-committal for the purpose of dealing with a particular question with which he was asked to deal by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee upstairs, and he has fulfilled that promise. That is by way of a concession. Having opened the door, hon. Members above the Gangway want to push it open the whole way. I am not sure that is a procedure which would commend itself to me, because it seems to me that it would discourage the Minister from making concessions.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: The Minister promised that he would do so.

Mr. GRIFFITH: Exactly, but the Minister might be very chary of making such concessions if he knew an attempt would be made to push the door entirely open. As I said on the Second Reading, I approve in general the objects of the Bill and wish to do everything in my power to facilitate its passage. Hon. Members are at least in the position that they are not being put under any handicap, because if this concession had not been made, the ordinary Rules of Order would have applied, and a good many things they want to raise could not have been raised again at this stage. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any substantial grievance, and I am inclined to resist the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

4.25 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: I want, first of all, to deal with the statement made by the Minister with regard to the re-committal of Clause 1. This Bill has never been a party Bill in the ordinary sense of the word, except that hon. Members on this side of the House have very strongly felt, first, that it did not go far enough, and, secondly, that they very much knew the Minister of Health. It is not as the hon. and somewhat tepid Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) said in his somewhat qualified approval of both the Minister and the Bill, it is not that, having the door open, we want to push it further open, but knowing the Minister of Health we are not anxious to see him, having got this one tiny Bill made into an Act, going round the country and in his usual manner of speaking, particularly to religious audiences, calling down the grace of Heaven on himself and his Government on the assumption that he has solved the whole problem of maternal mortality. I do not intend the Minister of Health to get away with that. This is a very small contribution to the whole problem.
I want also to remind the Minister that we got a promise from him with regard to the extension of the period, and we understood that that extension was to be incorporated in the Bill. With all due respect to the Central Midwives Board and to the voluntary organisations, we here are legislators. The right hon. Gentleman is a solicitor, and he must frequently have heard judges say in court that they are not concerned with the intention that Parliament had in passing an Act, but only with what the words of the Act are. I cannot see any judge being concerned with the rules of the Central Board, which is not a statutory committee. If the Minister is serious in extending the period, why does he not put it into the Bill? That seems to me to be a complete answer to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman.
I would like also to raise once again the question of voluntary organisations. I feel that in raising this matter I am not transgressing the limits of discussion on the Report stage, because this is a very fundamental matter between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves. We are anxious to get this Bill on to a proper footing from the beginning and

we do not think we shall do that if the voluntary organisations are maintained, with the lack of standardisation that that inevitably entails. We feel very much that the cause of having this Bill at all is the failure of the voluntary organisations. As a whole those voluntary organisations have done their job well, but this task is beyond their capacity. The whole cause of this Bill is that the task is beyond their capacity, and however much the Minister of Health may like to go round to fetes and be told how charming it was of him to have provided large sums of money for the voluntary organisations, we still maintain that the retention of the voluntary organisations breaks down the standards that ought to have been set up by this Bill.
I have always maintained that voluntary organisations have their place in our national life but their work is that of pioneers. It is their job to arouse public opinion in the beginning and to deal with a subject when it is in its experimental stage. Unfortunately, people in these voluntary organisations tend to think rather more of the financing and running of the organisations than of what the organisations were originally intended for. We think it tremendously important that this Bill should set up a high standard of nursing and training, and also a proper standard of remuneration and superannuation for the midwives. Consider the immense service that could be brought into being if the Government were prepared to tackle this problem in a proper manner, instead of tackling it, as they do everything else, as though it were a very hot poker and they were afraid of it and were looking round for somebody else to take hold of the hot end of it.
The fact is that these voluntary organisations cannot be made to conform to a standard because so much of their work is based on the general good will of people who give their leisure time, and so forth, to the work. They cannot be made to conform, and this Government is the last Government to attempt to make them conform, to a standard. It is pointed out, both by the British College of Nurses and by the Women's Public Health Officers Association, that midwives will have to do a certain amount of general nursing and that an un-


standardised midwife means unstandardised nursing. A much more serious position is caused by the lack of co-ordination and the condition of divided responsibility which exists between the voluntary organisations and the local authorities, to the detriment of the mothers. During the discussions on this Bill the Minister seems to have been more concerned about the preservation of the voluntary principle than about the welfare of the mothers. Over and over again he has spoken about the necessity of maintaining the voluntary principle. We want to speak of the necessity of getting the best possible service for the mothers. We believe also that it is contrary to a canon of government that the ratepayers' money should be spent by any body other than the authority which collects it. We object to public money being given to voluntary organisations without proper control.
I know that where you have an energetic town clerk or a good borough council you will get properly audited accounts, but difficulty will arise with the "Lady Bountiful" type of organisation in the rural districts where a number of elegant idle women, with nothing else to do, occupy themselves by patronising the local nursing association. It may be necessary that ladies of the upper classes should find some way of employing their leisure time, but we think that the rising rate of maternal mortality is much more important than that, particularly in country districts where women have suffered more from voluntary associations of various kinds than women in the towns. In the towns, the women voters by coming together have the opportunity of bringing pressure to bear on those responsible. In the country, women have to put up with more voluntary organisation work of the kind which I have indicated, and it is particularly necessary, I submit, that public money should not be given to the voluntary organisations and that this work should be undertaken by public authorities such as the county councils. We have, during these discussions, raised over and over again the question of the religious difficulties which may arise where you have a voluntary association performing this kind of work. There is always the possibility of such a service being used at a critical time to influence the mother

—which is hotly resented, especially by women in the rural areas. If the work is done by a properly paid public official, and if the whole supervision of the work is in the hands of properly elected and responsible people, and if the work is made to conform to a proper standard, that sort of thing cannot creep in, but it always creeps in where there are voluntary organisations.
I feel that we on this side must register our protest against so much public money being expended in this way, and also against what I can only describe as the breaking down of standards. This Measure will set the standard in the midwifery service for years to come, and we think that a great opportunity has been missed of establishing a high uniform standard, and of taking advantage of the excellent pioneer work which has been done by the voluntary organisations, in some areas though by no means in all. Instead of giving public money to voluntary organisations in the way proposed we should have taken this opportunity of establishing a real national service of which we could be proud. Seeing that one section of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues are making provision—and large and handsome provision—to destroy as many of the present generation as possible, I think it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had made more adequate provision in this Bill for the generation that will have to make up for the casualties which his colleagues are arranging.

4.38 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: I listened with interest to the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), and to the hon. Member who opened the Debate, and I cannot understand the grievance which is being aired with so much eloquence as regards the period of 10 days in the Bill. We had the Minister's promise that the period would be altered in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Central Midwives Board, and we know that those regulations are to be altered to extend the period to 14 days. But if we were to insert the period of 14 days in the Bill and if, at a later period, the Central Midwives Board wished to extend it to 16 days, there would be no power to do so. It is difficult, therefore, to understand hon. Members who are so anxious to see the period extended making such an extraordinary grievance


out of a provision which, in fact, gives a greater chance of having the period extended in the future than there would be if a certain number of days were specified in the Bill.
I listened with care to all that the Minister said in introducing the Bill and to all the speeches in support of it, and at no time have I heard the claim made on behalf of the Bill that it dealt with the whole question of maternal mortality. It is ludicrous for hon. Members opposite to attempt to make this a party question. I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow said that it was not a party question, but many other hon. Members on that side have sought to make it a party question and to pretend that this Bill represents the whole of the National Government's effort to reduce maternal mortality. That has never been the claim of the Government. What the Government have claimed is that after the passing of the Bill into law there will be a higher standard and a uniform standard of midwifery throughout the country and, above all, that mothers will be nursed by women who are trained and who know the work for which they have been engaged. In spite of what the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow has said, I believe that the voluntary organisations have done wonderful work and are in the main extremely popular. I do not know where the hon. Lady gained her experience, but in any districts where I have investigated the matter, and I have investigated in a good many, I have found that the nurses and midwives employed by the voluntary organisations enjoy the trust and confidence of the people in the vast majority of cases.

Miss WILKINSON: The hon. Lady will forgive me for interrupting, but I do not wish that there should be any misunderstanding. I did not suggest for an instant that there was any feeling against the nurses and midwives. What I did say was that feeling was often aroused by the way in which the voluntary committees used their powers.

Mrs. TATE: I know that the hon. Lady and her party do not believe in the voluntary organisations except as steppingstones, and want to see this service taken over by the State. I believe that eventually this service will be run by the State. Of that I am convinced, but when

that day comes we shall lose something of great value. I hope it will be long delayed. I anticipate it coming with great regret, because I believe that we shall then lose something of beauty and of value which it will be difficult to replace. I also believe that by utilising the services of the voluntary organisations we should be able to get this Measure working as the Minister wishes it to work, far more speedily than would otherwise be the case. Under the Bill we know that midwives, whether employed by local authorities or by voluntary organisations, will have standardised training and will have opportunities of refreshing their knowledge. I believe that the Measure is going to do what the Minister intends it to do, and what we all hope it will do, namely, raise both the status and the salary of the midwife.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: We on these benches were very much surprised when we saw the Amendments put down by the Minister, because those of us who sat on the Committee upstairs were under the impression that there had been a definite promise that either 14 days or 15 days would be inserted in the Bill. Two Amendments were put down in Committee, one in my name for 15 days, and another in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) for 14 days. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government would meet us and that on the Report stage they would insert the number of days in the Bill. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) did not understand the position because he was not on the Committee upstairs and he did not know of the definite promise that was made.

Sir K. WOOD: Inasmuch as the undertaking given by my hon. Friend has been called in question, I would like to read what it was:
If the hon. Member for Hemsworth and my hon. and gallant Friend withdraw their Amendments, we will put down, before Report stage an Amendment to the effect that the period of attendance … shall correspond to the period that shall from time to time be laid clown by the Central Midwives Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 14th May, 1936, col. 62.]

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) suggested that


we could acquiesce in what the Central Midwives Board would do. My point is that this House, and not the Central Midwives Board, is the authority, and either 14 days or 15 days should be inserted definitely in the Bill. We feel rather bitter about that point. I will not go over what the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has already said, but I would like to put another point. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. E. Dunn) and myself, which I would like to see inserted, because the Minister seems to be hedging. Upstairs he and the Parliamentary Secretary were very nice with us and said, "If you do not press this, we will see what we can do downstairs." We ask definitely that a midwife's salary shall be not less than that of a health visitor. The midwives in the past have had a very low salary, and I am sorry to say that they have been blacklegging one another. One has been doing the work cheaper than another, and then the other one has come along the next time and said, "I will do it cheaper than Mrs. Brown did it last time." We feel that a midwife is as important as a health visitor. In fact, we believe that the midwife is far more important than is the Minister for War. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he was discussing the Budget on 22nd April, said:
The greatest work of national importance that can exist is the taking of steps to secure the continued freedom and wellbeing of this Realm."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1936; col. 274, Vol. 311.]
He was speaking about an increase in armaments, and he said—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member of the Ruling I gave a short time ago.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I take it that if I cannot go into that, I can still talk about this increased salary that we have put down on the Paper. My only point with regard to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is that, in our view, the greatest work in life is bringing in life, not killing, and we on this side feel that if there is to be a State maternity service, the people who are to be employed full-time in that service should have at least the same salaries as health visitors. Health visitors get about £4 2s. 6d., and in some

cases slightly higher. These midwives are to be fully employed, and they will not be employed for only eight hours a day or so many morning, afternoon, or night shifts, but they will be called on at any time of the day or night, and we feel that it should be definitely laid down in this Bill, before it leaves this House, what their salary should be. It should not be less than the salary of a health visitor in the area where they are to work. We feel disappointed that the Minister is not inserting definitely either the 14 or the 15 days and is not making the Central Midwives Board people comply with us instead of making us comply with them.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: Some question has been raised with regard to the integrity of those responsible for bringing forward these Amendments. May I, as a Member of the Committee upstairs, say that, in spirit, if not in form, the Minister and his colleagues have certainly carried out the promise which they made when this matter was considered by the Committee. After all, is it not a fact that the discussion has ranged not so much over the question of whether it should be 14 or 15 days as upon the machinery which is necessary to carry out that undertaking in the best possible way? I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) when she said that on practical grounds it is much better that the Amendment should be put in the form in which it is proposed by the Minister than that a specific number of days should be put in which may hereafter be found to be too few. I think the machinery now proposed will be effective for the purpose in view. I thought the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), when speaking in reference to the present Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), showed a certain volubility and excitability, which is perhaps responsible for her having vacated her former seat as a Member for Middlesbrough. It sounded to me as though what she was concerned about more than anything else was the impression which had been created by the Minister of Health in one of the charming speeches which he makes from time to time.
It was our aim on the Committee as far as possible to attempt so to improve the Bill that it would secure the object for which it was introduced, namely,


the improvement of the service of midwives and the status of midwives, and while the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat has referred to the fact that he and one of his friends have an Amendment on the Paper asking that the salary paid to a midwife shall not be less than that paid to a health visitor, I do not want it to go unchallenged by this party that we think the midwives ought to have less. We believe that an improvement in the status of the midwife would be definitely brought about through the machinery of this Bill, and for myself I have perfect confidence in the administration of most of the local authorities of this country, I can never understand why it is that so many hon. Members of the Labour party are inclined to assume that the local authorities do not carry out their duties fairly and honestly and in the best interests of those whom they represent.
We ask the local authorities to undertake certain duties which we believe will advance the status of the midwives and result, as we all hope, in a decrease in maternal mortality. Surely it is a small thing, when we entrust them with this work, to leave them complete discretion to decide on the terms upon which they shall engage those who are to carry out the work. We are all anxious that this service shall be put on a higher status and improved, and we believe that that improvement can be obtained by the methods suggested in the Bill. The Minister, in Committee upstairs, explained the refusal to accept the Labour party's Amendment, not in a spirit of variation from it, but rather because he has confidence in the administration of the local authorities, and I do not want it to be assumed that there is any Member of the party to which I belong who has any desire to reduce the emoluments of the midwives. On the contrary, we are very anxious that they should be paid as generously as possible.

4.55 p.m.

Sir ROBERT TASKER: As one who has worked in connection with voluntary services, and as one who was chairman of one of these organisations of midwifery before the war and who occupies that unenviable position to-day, while I will not attempt to follow the method adopted by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), I think one or two mis-

conceptions might be cleared away by experience gained from actual contact with the work of voluntary organisations. The organisation of which I have the honour to be chairman has attended to more than 600,000 cases, and it is not within my recollection that there has been the death of a single mother attended by a midwife sent out by my organisation. Of course, we have taken precautions to see that no midwife is sent out unless she holds the very best qualifications and undertakes that in the event of any minor complication presenting itself she will at once call in a doctor.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) talked about the high rate of mortality. I am happy to say that it is lower in London than in any other part of the country, but one of the great authorities, Dr. H. G. Dain, of Birmingham, chairman of the British Medical Association committee of the national maternity services scheme, and chairman of the Insurance Act committee of the British Medical Association, has declared:
It is an astounding claim that a woman is safer in childbirth in a slum home than in a hospital, but it is undoubtedly true.
That bears out exactly the experience of my organisation. As I said just now, I have been unable to trace the death of a single mother attended by our midwives. It is not fair to attribute death to want of care in hospitals, because we recognise that the worst cases are taken to the hospitals; the cases they deal with, therefore, are not comparable with those which take place in private homes. Let me compare the efforts of the voluntary organisations in London—I cannot be expected to extend my investigations all over the country—with those of the municipal authorities. The local authorities under the 1918 Act are the Metropolitan Borough Councils in London. In 1935 in those 28 Metropolitan boroughs and in the City they actually employed four midwives, whereas my voluntary organisation employed 40. Those midwives attended 306 cases in the whole of London, whereas my voluntary organisation midwives attended over 1,000 cases.
But what have the local authorities done? They have made arrangements with voluntary hospitals, and the number of cases they sent to those voluntary hospitals was 2,200. I have no statistics of any borough save my own.


The Holborn Borough Council arranged for the treatment of 56 mothers at a cost of £41 15s. My voluntary association sent midwives to 1,000 expectant mothers at a cost of nearly £1,400. The Holborn Borough Council's work seems to have been above the average of other councils. There were 59,000 births of children in London this last year. As a matter of fact, if you take in the larger area, the figures are 65,000, but I am taking the smaller area. What do we find in those 59,000 cases? Hon. Members opposite desire that people shall be herded together. Their idea is to say to a woman bearing a child, "You shall go into a hospital." They are opposed to voluntary organisations. I think the natural and proper place for the birth of a child is in the home of the mother. It should not be in a place provided by the general body of ratepayers or a nursing home or the maternity ward of a hospital. Let a woman have her child in her own home. That is the natural place in which to have it.

Mr. GALLACHER: Would the hon. Member allow a child to be born in a home where it often happens there is a dead body on the table?

Viscountess ASTOR: How often does that happen?

Mr. GALLACHER: Very often.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting a long way from the Amendment, which has the object of leaving out the name of Sir Kingsley Wood. That would have the effect of making the Motion read:
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 1, standing on the Notice Paper.
The discussion must be confined to the Amendments to Clause 1 standing on the Order Paper, and reasons should be given why the Bill should or should not be re-committed in respect of those Amendments.

Sir R. TASKER: I apologise for having been drawn aside. The question is whether the period of 10 days should be extended, and those who have had experience of this work are in agreement about that. One knows that there are certain women who are walking about three days after delivering a child, and that is a very undesirable state of

affairs. The 10 days is, as a matter of practical common knowlelge, usually regarded as the period during which a woman should be confined to her home and should not be permitted to walk about and work. The Minister has listened to the plea which was made to him in Committee and has agreed to extend the period. Unfortunately, I could not serve on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill because I was on another Committee. The Minister is trying to help the mothers, and I cannot see what opposition there can be from hon. Members on the other side. I urge the House to give the Minister the opportunity to extend this period to 14, 15 or 16 days. He is being advised by a most competent body, namely, the Central Midwives Board. Those who know the board know that if it errs at all, it errs on the side of safety because it consists of people who thoroughly understand this business. They want to do the best they can for the mother, and so does every man who is a father, and, I hope, every man who is not a father. I agree with my hon. Friend who said that it is more important to save life than to sacrifice it. I commend this Bill to the House. I believe that the mothers of this country will bless the day when this Bill was introduced.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): We are not discussing the Third Reading.

Sir R. TASKER: I was only appealing to hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw their Amendment.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I agreed with the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) when he expressed the view that the Minister, in putting down these Amendments, is doing honourably what he undertook to do. My recollection of what took place in Committee coincides with his. The Minister undertook to alter the Bill so that the period should be as the Central Midwives Board would have it, on the understanding that the board amended its rules immediately so as to make the period 14 days instead of 10. On that understanding, which is common to both sides of the House, the Minister is doing in these Amendments what we urged him to do in Committee and what he promised to do. Amendments were


moved many times in Committee and not accepted by the Minister, for no better reason that many hon. Members could see than that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought of them first. These Amendments are rather an exception. The right hon. Gentleman had not thought of them first, but the arguments were so overwhelmingly one way that he was compelled to give the undertaking that he gave and that he is now embodying in these Amendments.
Why should he stop there? When we have persuaded him to do something that is obviously reasonable and right, why should he limit his opportunities by rejecting other Amendments that are on the Paper and are equally reasonable and right? Take the question of voluntary organisations. I would say to the hon. Member for Holborn, (Sir R. Tasker) that there are millions of homes which would make his organisation and himself shudder to think that they were the only possible or accessible places in which the children of this nation could be born. It is for that reason as much as for any other that in places where slums have become a crime the municipal institution has been preferred to the home. We cannot talk about general principles in this matter. We may as a matter of sentiment prefer that children should be born at home, but the home must be suitable. I feel that there has been considerable misunderstanding about the line that has been taken by my colleagues on the question of voluntary organisations. We make no attack on the voluntary organisations. This Bill is, in its own way, a tribute to their work.

Sir R. TASKER: The Bill is, but the Opposition is not.

Mr. SILVERMAN: If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument he may find that we are less opposed to them than he is inclined to believe. It is because the voluntary organisations have already shown how much, with their limited means and with their limited appeal and organisation, can be done to stem the rising tide of maternal mortality that the public conscience has been aroused and that the Government have been compelled to go further than any voluntary organisation can go and make a State service of this matter. That is the proper function of the voluntary

organisation. The business of the voluntary organisation has always been to look round the community and find what gaps the State has left unfilled, what miseries have not been cured, what preventable suffering has not been eased, what preventable disease remains uncured. Where there is human suffering and misery due to poverty, destitution and disease that the State as such has neglected, the voluntary organisations have crept in, and said, "What the State ought to do and have not done we, out of our own private charity, will do."
I think that we have aroused sufficient public anxiety to compel the State to do the work which the voluntary organisations have done on a limited scale and which they would never he able to do on an adequate scale. What does the Minister propose to do, and why do the voluntary organisations prefer that he should do it? Why do they complain when we say they should not do it? The Minister is taking advantage of the private charity of the voluntary organisations and is remedying that part of the deficiency with which the voluntary organisations have not been able to deal. The voluntary organisations are to be allowed, subject of course to the local authorities, to carry on part of the job that ought to be the job of the State.

Sir R. TASKER: Will the hon. Member allow me to give the figures? In institutions there were 37,700 births, and domiciliary cases numbered 27,200.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving those figures, and perhaps, if he can find an opportunity later, he will explain their relevance, but I cannot see that they are relevant or why he thought it necessary to intervene. However much the voluntary organisations are doing, this Bill would not be before the House if they were doing sufficient. They are not doing it adequately because their resources are not sufficient, and this Bill has been introduced because the service ought to be nationally performed. Why should not the voluntary organisations agree that this ought to be a State duty? After trying to do the duty of the State for so long, why should not they call upon the State to do it and release their energies and funds for new pastures, for some of the other deficiencies in the State service to which the Government is


not yet alive? Would that not be wiser? Ought not these powerful bodies, with their funds and their wealth of private charity, to be devoted to those masses of suffering which the State has not yet seen, it to be its duty to relieve?
If the State is going to do this job, let it do the job properly and not rely on the resources of private individuals to do part of the job. It should be put completely on a national basis. There will unfortunately remain for many years, perhaps for generations, certainly for ever so far as this Government is concerned, large fields of ever-growing necessity for private individual charity. Let them not fritter away their activities. I think we are entitled to call upon those who have supported voluntary organisations so far, and who have done the work as well as it could be done with the resources at their disposal, to back us up and help us to get the State to take that responsibility off their hands, so that they may be free to devote their activities to other things which the Government have not so far tackled. I hope that the Minister, having by this Amendment given himself an opening to strengthen his Bill in one direction, will not stultify himself by refusing to strengthen it in those other directions where his own private intelligence, whatever the collective decision of the Government may have been, tells him it could so easily be strengthened.

5.16 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I shall not detain the House long, because there has been a great deal of repetition, and that is the last thing we want. I wish to congratulate the Minister on his Bill, and particularly on this Clause, because I believe the State services will be all the better for working alongside the voluntary organisations. I have seen that arrangement in operation. I have seen people who started off by thinking the State could do everything, but who have found that the soul was missing from its work. If we have the voluntary organisations working side by side with the State they will keep the State organisations up to the standard which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) would like them to maintain. We owe a great deal to these voluntary organisations. I do not think the country can ever be grateful

enough to them, and I hate to hear them being made the subject of jeers and references to their being taken advantage of for political purposes. That is "all my eye." You can talk that "tripe" in the House of Commons and at political meetings, but the people who know the work that is being done—

Mr. SILVERMAN: Is the Noble Lady entitled to address her arguments to me personally, and to point her finger at me, especially as I was not guilty of any of the statements to which she is now referring?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When the Noble Lady uses the word "you" she must address the Chair.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to ask whether the word "tripe" is Parliamentary?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The expression appears to me to be inelegant, but I cannot see that there is anything to which I can take exception.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Is it not the name of a very humble but very valuable food in Lancashire?

Viscountess ASTOR: I was not criticising the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, because he paid a tribute to the voluntary organisations, his speech being a great relief in that respect, but he did say one thing with which I cannot agree, when he suggested that the Government should say to the voluntary organisations, "Now you have done your work in this direction, turn on to something else." The Government cannot do that. I myself would like to see them turn their attention to open-air nursery schools—but we cannot do it that way. There are people whose whole heart is in midwifery, and you cannot get them to give it up in that fashion. I could not let the Bill go through without paying a real tribute to those marvellous workers, drawn from all sections of people and of all political parties, who have given years of voluntary, and I might also say Christ-like, service to midwifery. I hope the Opposition will let the Minister go on and give him great credit for having gone as far as he has, and for having made it possible for both the voluntary organisations and the State service to go on together. I am certain that in the end they will


see that the Government have been wise in trying not to wipe out voluntary organisations.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. E. DUNN: I do not think anyone can approach this question from a party standpoint. I regard it as one of the most human questions which have come before this House. I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) who, I understand, is a mother and has a family of her own. All I want to say, in reply to the Noble Lady, is that we on this side of the House are anxious that the same facilities should be granted to working-class mothers during the time of childbirth as the noble Lady and many of her friends have when they or their daughters have to pass through that experience.

Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Member said he was not going to speak from a party point of view. Does he not know that the object of the Government, indeed, the object of all in this House, is to give to working mothers as good an opportunity as is possible? It is not fair to say that we do not want working women to have the same opportunity as others.

Mr. DUNN: I have not suggested that the Noble Lady or the Government do not desire to give working-class women exactly the same facilities as they would give to people in a better position, and because I believe that I cannot see why the Minister should not be prepared to insert these words in the Bill. It is my recollection that when we debated this matter in Committee every Member went away feeling there was a definite understanding that the figures would be inserted in the Bill. I think that is the reason why we have contested this point so fiercely—we are not dealing with it from a party standpoint, but we felt that a pledge had been given which caused us to withdraw our opposition upstairs.
Some of us have had very close experience of these voluntary organisations for many years. I have been actively associated with such an organisation for more than 25 years, and am still associated with it. It is an organisation

which has employed fully certified midwives. That being so, I do not think anybody could accuse me of being biased against the noble work done by voluntary organisations; but my point is that child bearing is one of the most important functions which this House is called upon to consider, particularly in view of the falling birth rate. I have before called attention to the fact that during the last 10 years the birth figure has fallen from over 800,000 per annum to just over 500,000. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in a speech at Liverpool last week on this all important service made rather a strong point of the number of mothers who died during child-birth last year.
I do not subscribe to the view that working-class mothers would desire that the birth of their children should take place at home, except for real economic reasons; and among those economic reasons are the fact that she has her family to attend to, that she has the cares of the home as well and has never had the opportunity of either lying in bed for a fortnight or being away from the cares of the family for a fortnight. I say definitely that the 14 days ought to be inserted in the Bill, because it is a reasonable period. If the Government are honest in what they say why should they fear to put it in the Bill? I appeal to the Government to honour the understanding which was come to in Committee upstairs, because we regarded it as a definite commitment. I should like to ask, Captain Bourne, whether you are going to allow, as Mr. Speaker did, a discussion generally upon Clause 1 as it now stands, or limit the discussion to the Amendment which is before the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member was in the House when Mr. Speaker pointed out that the effect of the Amendment now before the House would be to enable a discussion to take place on the various Amendments to Clause 1 which are on the Paper, but that that discussion must be limited to the Amendments which are on the Paper.

Mr. DUNN: Therefore I understand that, apart from the question of the Motion in the name of the Minister of Health, all Amendments which are on the Paper dealing with Clause 1 are open for discussion at this stage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, that is so.

Mr. DUNN: I welcome the attempt of the Ministry of Health to introduce a service of skilled and certified midwives, but, like previous speakers, I am extremely anxious in this connection that the services of the useful handy women who have rendered so much help in the past should not be overlooked. The position in regard to maternal mortality is really an appalling tragedy, as I think even the Parliamentary Secretary admitted in his speech at Liverpool, when I believe he gave the figure of 2,400 deaths. I regard that as a real tragedy, and as showing the necessity for a service of certified and properly trained midwives, available for rich and poor alike, in the rural districts as well as in the big cities. Further, I think this service ought to be made as attractive as that of the health visitors. Reference has been made to the status which the health visitor enjoys in a country. I think the midwifery service is an even greater service than that of the health visitors, and the salaries to be paid to midwives should not be less than those given to health visitors. In view of the opinion which prevails in the House I take it the salaries to be fixed will be the same.
There was a time when the health visitor was not so welcome in the homes of the people as she is to-day. The health visitor is now a welcome guest. There was a time, also, when people were rather shy of the ante-natal services and postnatal care. In modern times the women of the country are being trained so that they may make the most of the protection that is available for them, and that they may be cared for and have all the facilities of ante-natal service. They do not resent that service now, as they did formerly. We have turned over from the bad old past to a better future.
Motherhood is something to be protected and cared for. That protection is not a prerogative of this side of the House, but of the whole House. My plea is that the Minister should play fair in respect of all the women and all the midwives of the country. He should withdraw his objection to inserting the period of 14 days into the Bill, and he should lay it down as a condition that whether a midwife is employed by a local

authority, a welfare council or a voluntary organisation, wherever she is practising, the conditions should be uniform, whoever the supervising authority may be. If that were done, the effect of the Measure would be to allay the fears expressed by the Minister of Health when speaking at Liverpool. He said that some people in the country were frightening the women to death with regard to this question of midwifery. All we are doing is to say that, seeing that three out of four of the women who lose their lives at the period of childbirth could be, and ought to be, saved, as has been put on record by the highest authorities, we welcome the Bill, if it will save same of those lives.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. RITSON: The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has been doing her usual political stunt. She comes here, kicks up a bit of a row and runs off. I object to this modern Diana of the Ephesians getting down from her pedestal. It is in order for a goddess at least to stay upon the altar, and not fling herself about here in an irresponsible manner. I appreciate her as a mother, and honour her for that, but I want her to realise that there are many other mothers in the country who have not had an opportunity of the comforts which she has had. She condemned us for looking at this subject politically. I said upon the Second Reading that I was a member of a big family, and a father of a big family. Having gone through the tragedy of it all again and again, why should I treat it politically? I ask any Member of this House whether we can make this a political question. Our ambition is to make the best use of the practical knowledge we have of the circumstances.
I object to the references made by the Minister of Health to the "Mrs. Gamps." My objection to many of the voluntary societies is that under them, instead of one Mrs. Gamp there will be five or ten Mrs. Gamps. That is why I want the local authorities to come under the Ministry. The Ministry will have power to say to a local authority: "You are not doing your duty in this matter." An hon. Member spoke very sincerely from the Government Benches. I can understand him, but I can never understand the Noble Lady at any time. The


hon. Gentleman made a statement that staggered me. He said that there had been 60,000 births in London and not one child had been lost. What different tale there is to tell in Durham, where 6.87 per 1,000 of the women have been lost. The hon. Gentleman said that the women wanted to have their babies in their own homes. There is nobody more anxious for that than I am, if it is a home. I remember some of the very serious cases that I have seen. I remember a well-known character whom we had to try to arrest, but who evaded arrest by the fact that she was going to have a baby. It was a stillborn baby, but every time the police came she kept the baby, and in spite of the local authority she could not be taken. Where that baby was born there is no stable half so dirty and mucky. It was not the woman's fault. She was living in the slums.
I have had to travel in such places, trying to get people to help these poor women through their travail, in places in which we should not dream of keeping an animal, never mind a human being. Those places are there yet. I am trying to train the mothers and to get the best possible skill for them on the part of doctors or midwives, but if they live in homes of that kind we have a duty to supply them with the best domiciliary treatment in our institutions. Why should we not do so? I hope that the Minister will give us the period of 15 or 16 days. What are 15 days? There are cases in which the women can get up and be about their work in four days, but there are other cases in which the women would not be ready for a month, although they have been compelled to rise in five or six days. Members of my own family have had to get up after three days, to get men ready for the pit.
The district nurse is now a welcome visitor. I remember when she was not. That practice is now established, and we are willing and anxious to take over the best skilled midwives. We hope it has not been forgotten that the doctors will not neglect their duty because of the midwives. The hon. Gentleman opposite must not think that my hon. Friends and I are dealing with this matter from any political standpoint. I should forgo politics altogether if I thought that the death or the life of a mother depended

upon my political outlook. There is no Member of the party opposite, bitter as that party is against me politically, who, if I fell in the street, would not rush to my assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know that is so, and I pay that tribute. We feel the same way about the mothers. I hope that we are all looking at it from that point of view. I tell hon. Members sincerely that I am doing so. I see the tragedy and the trial of it.
I remember telling the Noble Lady some years ago—it is like putting two electric sparks together whenever we meet—when she sneered at one of my friends, Mr. Robert Smillie, that I could take her to places in Durham where children were born in the same houses as the dead were laid out in. Somebody objected to that. Some of us were born in one room, with eight or nine in the family. What could you expect to happen? You did not turn the body out, or turn the mother out. Again and again we have had that sort of thing happen. I ask the House and the Noble Lady to think of the magnificent courage of these women, who are living with their families in one room, and giving birth in the same room as that in which they lay out their dead. Many children have been born when there was coaldust in such places. In order that mothers who have a home may receive every care, we are asking the Minister and hon. Members on the other side to grant us 15 or 16 days.
I remember when my wife had one of the many children that she has had. When we got through, and after the work was over, the doctor said—he was a man who is well known in the medical world—"If I were you, Mrs. Eason, I should lie three weeks. It is the only opportunity a working woman has of getting a rest." Yet we are proposing to limit her, the working woman, by Act of Parliament. I do not say this with any bitterness or personality to hon. Members opposite: In your standard of life, do you allow your wife to be up before 10, 12 or 15 days, with all the care and comfort you can give her? In colliery villages, many poor women have had to lie there in circumstances such as I have described. The Bill should compel them to lie until a certificate was given that they were in a proper state of health, instead of our splitting hairs about whether a woman is to lie an hour one way or the other. I


appeal to the Minister. We talk about the birthrate. I am more anxious for the birthrate than I am about anything else with which we deal in this House. The life and future of the child depend upon the happiness of the mother. Any man who has had a big family knows that when the mother with a child at the breast is worried, the child is worried also. There is a dual worry, and it is not only a physical, but a mental worry. Give us a stated period. Do not limit it to 14 or 16 days. Give us a maximum of 15 days, or even of three weeks.
Let me say why I am anxious that the local authority should do this work rather than other people. You have voluntary service in all sorts of things. I do not object, as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of the subject. My contention is that a voluntary association cannot be taken to task by the Minister. On the other hand, a local authority can be asked why its maternity homes are not up to standard, and the Ministry can send down an inspector. You cannot do that with the voluntary associations. We are, therefore, rather drawn to local authorities. We are not speaking of any Socialistic ideal of public authority, but if there is anything which should be done by public authority in the public interest, and in the interest of the nation, it is the upbringing of the children. The birth of the children should be directly under your care. I hope the Minister will not be as narrow as he appears—I am not speaking physically—and that he will give us a date or a period of at least 15 days. He ought to give us more. I hope he will feel compassion with the surroundings in the distressed areas, where there is overcrowding, due not to the neglect of good neighbours, who are called Mrs. Gamps, but to economic circumstances. We are now providing a new avenue of escape for the mother. Let it be as generous and wide as possible. She will repay you, in the hard work that she gives in the birth of a child, if you will be generous to her.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: The most that we can expect from this Clause when it is passed is that it may reduce maternal mortality, but a point which we often raise in this House is that Bills should be drafted so that they are understandable. I suggest that the Minister's Amendment which we are discussing is not an understandable Amendment. It says:

In this Sub-section the expression 'lying-in period' means the period defined as the lying-in period by any rule for the time being in force under Section three of the principal Act.
I have carefully looked through Section 3 of the principal Act, and cannot find in it any rule that lays down a period of lying-in, and I am objecting to the Amendment from that point of view. In Committee we had a long discussion on the extension of the lying-in period, and Members in all quarters of the Committee were agreed that 10 days was not sufficient. I think the whole Committee favoured 14 days as a minimum. We moved to make it 15 days, which we think is little enough, and the Minister gave us to understand, however he interprets the words he used, that he accepted the spirit of our Amendment and would provide words that would fill the Bill with regard to it. I suggest that the words on the Paper are not satisfactory—that they are not clear and are not as laid down in Section 3 of the principal Act; and I feel that the Minister has not met the arguments used in. Committee by moving an Amendment in this form. I agree that there ought to be a definite minimum period in the Bill, and I cannot see that this Amendment meets the position at all. If the Minister can show us that Section 3 does provide a definite lying-in period, I suppose we shall have to accept the position, but I have carefully read it and cannot find anything in it that enables me to say that any definite lying-in period is prescribed in the Act of 1902.
I agree that there are different points of view on the two sides of the House, and that we look at this matter quite differently from hon. Members opposite. We all know the tragic fate that comes to so many young mothers, but somehow or other, whatever the reason, we have a different outlook as to how it should be dealt with. We feel that there are points, which have been raised on this side of the House, which ought to have been included in the Bill. The Bill is not going to carry out what some people hope it will carry out; it is not going to remove the dangers of maternal mortality that exist to-day; it is not going to guarantee an efficient service—that there shall be an efficient midwife at hand for every young mother; and it does not give any guarantee that there is going


to be an efficient service of that kind throughout the country.
We do not object to voluntary organisations as such in any service. For generations all this work has been left in the hands of people who have done it voluntarily. We have not done our duty in this matter of provision for the care of the young mother; it has been left to those public-spirited women who have devoted their time and energy to it. But, while, we bear tribute to the work that has been done by generations of mothers who have been interested, not only in themselves, but in other mothers, we are satisfied that, when we are trying in this Bill to do something to reduce maternal mortality, we ought to take definite steps to obviate many of the deaths that now take place.
On the Second Reading of the Bill we were told by the Minister that there is no guarantee from these voluntary organisations that they are going to pay proper salaries, that they are going to see that the conditions of the midwives are efficient, or that superannuation or pension is to be provided for those employed by voluntary organisations. It is not necessarily because we are Socialists that we favour the idea of the State or the local authority taking charge, but in this service it is most important that the local authority should be the foundation of the work. We do not want to wipe out all voluntary workers. There are thousands of men and women who are devoted to helping other people. Let them do it, and let them be brought in so that they can do this work. But we desire an efficient service, and we cannot see that the proposals of the Bill will result in an efficient service. That is why we have spoken of the voluntary organisations in the way that we have, and not because we have any bitterness or enmity towards them.
I should like to mention a small Amendment, which has not been accepted, but which I think ought to be accepted, because it is vital. We had an Amendment on the Paper to require the provision by the authority of a sterilised maternity outfit in every case. It was only a small Amendment, but it was a very important one. We do not know how many young

mothers die owing to the fact that instruments are used that are not sterilised and are not in proper condition, but undoubtedly many lives have been lost through the use of such instruments in the hands of inefficient people, because the facilities were not there for providing an efficient service. Personally I hope that the Minister, if he will not insert our Amendment in the Bill, will see, when he approves of the rules, that that provision is made, whether the midwives are employed by the local authority or by voluntary organisations. I hope, however, that, now that we have the opportunity of recommitting the Bill in respect of Clause 1, the Minister will consider an Amendment such as that to which I have referred. I cannot expect him, after the long arguments and discussions in Committee, to agree to the idea that midwives employed by voluntary organisations shall be paid the same salaries as those who are employed by local authorities, because he said on the Second Reading that that would not be so, and that again shows that there will not be the efficient service that we desire to see. My primary object in rising was to ask the Minister to make clear his own Amendment. I would rather that a fixed number of days were laid down, instead of leaving it in its present form.

5.55 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): In the discussion of this Amendment three points emerge, with which I will deal, although two of them have been already dealt with by the Minister. The first is whether, in the framework of the Bill, we are right in utilising the experience that. voluntary effort has built up, or whether we should straight away insist on an exclusively municipal service. Hon. Members opposite are never tired of saying that they have no grudge against voluntary effort, and they frequently repeat that this is not a matter of politics. I am glad to have that assurance. If anyone told hon. Members that a scheme was possible whereby maternity mortality might be reduced by one-half, they would immediately say that that scheme must be tried. The experience of county district nursing associations working in 60 out of 62 counties is the justification for the Bill. Over a number of years in those


counties, with a large number of births, running into scores of thousands a year, very low maternal mortality rates have been achieved under the guidance of these voluntary district nursing associations.

Mr. RITSON: Does that apply in Durham?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It applies all over the country. It applies in Durham, and is the experience in almost all counties. If this is not to be a matter of politics, let us at least try to organise a salaried service, using the experience of voluntary associations, in the hope that the maternal mortality rates will be substantially reduced.
The second point, which was raised in the Committee upstairs, is as to why we did not insert in the Bill a provision calling upon authorities to provide sterilised maternity outfits. The House may be assured that maternity and child welfare authorities have the power to provide sterilised outfits, that they use such power, and that, now that they have this duty upon them to organise a proper service instead of relying upon independent services, they will use that power more and more.
The third point is as to whether we are keeping faith with the Committee in putting down the Amendments to Clause 1 standing in the Minister's name. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) appears to be still uncertain as to the reason why we seek to achieve what we desire under Section 3 of the Midwives Act, 1902. That Section is the rule-making Section; it gives power to the Central Midwives Board to make rules governing the conduct of midwives in connection with the cases which they attend. All that we are doing here is to provide that the period of attendance of a midwife acting as maternity nurse shall correspond with whatever period may be laid down in the rules of the Central Midwives Board from time to time. We have just) been given notice that it is the intention of the Central Midwives Board to increase the period, which is now at least 10 days, to a period of at least 14 days. I hope the Amendment will be allowed to pass in its present form, be- cause, if the Amendment of the Opposition were accepted, a very great disservice would be done to the mothers.
If in two or three years' time, after this service has been properly organised, as we hope it will be by that time, the Central Midwives Board came to us and said, "Now at last we have got a proper national service throughout the whole country, and we would like to extend the 14 days to 15 or 16 days," we could not do it because hon. Members want to put a fixed number of days in the Bill. They want to stabilise a period for all time. If, in the opinion of the Central Midwives Board, a longer period proves necessary as experience is gained, the Bill will automatically give the necessary power. I honestly believe that the opposition is due to a misapprehension of the position. I do not suppose for a moment that there is anyone on the opposite side of the House who does not want the purpose which in fact will be attained by the Amendment. We are all agreed that it is of very great service to increase the period and we want to make it as elastic as possible so as not to cramp ourselves and prevent further progress being made.

Mr. E. DUNN: Would you really cramp yourself if you said at least 14 days?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Certainly. If we say it must be the period from time to time laid down by the Central Midwives Board, and the Midwives Board lay down a period of three weeks, we should secure a period of three weeks in the future.

6.2 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not telling the House that if in an Act of Parliament you have the expression "not less than 14 days" you are not therefore able to say in a subsequent rule that it shall be 21 days? The two things are perfectly consistent. The only thing you cannot say in a subsequent rule is something less than 14. You cannot say 12. It is a safeguard that no rule can be made which shall be less than 14 days, but a rule can be made for any period above 14. It does not cramp anyone's style and it ensures that in no conceivable circumstances can it be less than 14 days.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There is something in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but why put a definite time in the Bill? If the Central Midwives Board has been set up to determine what is the requisite period, why not say that the period shall correspond with that laid down by the board?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Because experience has often shown that in cases of this sort too short periods are in fact adopted, sometimes from the point of view of economy. Here you are making it quite certain that Parliament considers that a minimum period should be inserted and, beyond that, there is complete elasticity for the Midwives Board to fix whatever period they like.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think it is much better, having appointed a very authoritative body, to say that whatever time they fix as the requisite time for the

attendance of a midwife, the period laid down in Clause, I shall correspond. I really think that we are making rather a mountain out of a molehill, because all that the Opposition have asked for is conceded. The Amendment was pressed on us from all sides of the House, and we have put it down in a form which allows progress to be made in the future.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 120.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[6.5 p.m.


Acland. Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Denman, Hon, R. D.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Acland,R. T,D. (Barnstaple)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Joel, D. J. B.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Drewe, C.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Keeling, E. H.


Apsley, Lord
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Assheton, R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eastwood, J. F.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ellis, Sir G.
Latham, Sir P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Emery, J. F.
Leckie, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lees-Jones, J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Entwistle, C. F.
Levy, T.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'h)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Llddall, W. S.


Bernays, R. H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Loftus, P. C,


Blair, Sir R.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Blindell, Sir J.
Everard, W. L.
Lyons, A. M.


Bosom, A. C.
Fildes, Sir H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Boulton, W. W.
Foot, D. M.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Furness, S. N.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)


Briscoe, Capt. R.G.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McKie, J. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C, (Newbury)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Magnay, T.


Bull, B. B.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Maitland, A.


Burghley, Lord
Goldie, N. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Goodman, Cal. A.W
Mander, G. le M.


Cortland, J. R. H.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon, G. K. M.


Cary, R. A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Channon, H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Choriton, A, E. L.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Owen, Major G.


Colville, Lt.-Cal. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Patrick, C. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Peat, C. U.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir G.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Craddock, sir R. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Petherick, M.


Crooke, J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cross, R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Crowder, J. F. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Radford, E. A.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsbotham, H.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hunter, T.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Dawson, Sir P.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


De Chair, S. S.
Jackson, Sir H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)




Remer, J. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Tate, Mavis C.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Touche, G. C.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Turton, R. H.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wakefield, W. W.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Smithers, Sir W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Salmon, Sir I.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Salt, E. W.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wells, S. R.


Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Spens, W. P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wise, A. R.


Sandys, E. D.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Selley, H. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Shakespeare, G. H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)



Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Dr. Morris-Jones and Lieut.-




Colonel Llewellin.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rowson, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Salter, Dr. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Barr, J.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Short, A.


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Benson, G.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brooke, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Close, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Compton, J.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Day, H.
Markiew, E.
Whiteley, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Paling, W.
woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Parkinson, J. A.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Potts, J.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Provision of domiciliary service of midwives.)

6.15 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "during," to insert "childbirth."
This Amendment and the two following Amendments have been put down with

the object of carrying out the undertaking which I have given the House, and of which I gave a full explanation on the previous Motion before the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from the second "time," to "is," in line 17, and to insert, "thereafter during a period not less than the lying-in period."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Having had such an excellent opening discussion in an


attempt to delete the name of the right hon. Gentleman from the Motion just disposed of, perhaps I may ask him a very simple question. Will he be good enough to tell us whether the new rules of the Central Midwives Board will be passed and become operative in time for the implementing of the provisions of the Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir, that will be so.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 17, at the end, insert:
In this sub-section the expression 'lying-in period' means the period defined as the lying-in period by any rule for the time being in force under section three of the principal Act."—[Sir K. Wood.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.18 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: There are two questions which I want to put to the Minister on this Clause. If the local authority or the voluntary organisation fails to provide a sufficient number of midwives, what powers has he under this or any other Clause to compel them to do so? The second question is whether a woman who is confined will be compelled to have a maternity nurse and be subject to the provisions contained in Clause 3?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: In answer to the first question, the duty is imposed on the supervising authority, and where that duty is not carried out the ordinary remedies are available.

Mr. BATEY: Tell us what the remedies are.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The provision of this service is clearly a vital part of the public health services, and, in the unlikely event of a local authority not making provision, the Minister will have power to withhold part of the block grant under the Local Government Act, 1929.

Mr. BATEY: That would only apply to the local authority; it would not apply to the nursing association or welfare council.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the nursing association have not carried out their duty, it is the duty of the supervising

authority to see that the whole area is covered by a scheme. If the nursing association will do it, well and good, but if it will not, the duty falls upon the supervising authority.

Mr. BATEY: Answer the second question.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is a mother compelled to have a qualified maternity nurse? I would rather put it the other way round, and say that she is not allowed to have an untrained nurse to nurse her.

Mr. BATEY: That is another question. Is a mother, according to the Bill, compelled to have a maternity nurse such as you are providing, that is, a nurse with the midwife's certificate, and, if so, will she be subject to the penalties of Clause 3?

Sir K. WOOD: I want to be quite clear about this matter. I hope that it is not so, but I rather think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the getting of a statement from the Minister standing at this Box that some people other than qualified nurses should be available.

Mr. BATEY: I will come to that later.

Sir K. WOOD: The answer is that no one can compel a mother to have a nurse if she does not want one, but there is a provision in the Bill which deals with unqualified people.

Mr. BATEY: There are strong powers under Clause 3. The maternity nurse can recover her fees in court, and that is an enormous power to give her over a working-class woman.

Sir K. WOOD: When this service is established it will be for the supervising authority to deal with that question?

Mr. BATEY: That still does not meet my point. I am either not making myself clear or the right hon. Gentleman does not catch the point which I am trying to make. Let me put it to him this way: A qualified maternity nurse who goes into a home will be entitled to a fee. That fee will be, say, £3 a week, and if the midwife remains in attendance upon a mother for two weeks, the fee will amount to £6, and that is an enormous sum for a working-class


mother to have to find. If she does not pay, the local authority or the maternity nurse can take her to court for the recovery of the money.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this matter arises under Clause 1.

Mr. BATEY: No, it does not.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is clearly out of order.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended (in. the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provision of domiciliary service of midwives.)

6.23 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 1, line 26, to leave out "or undertake to employ."
The object of moving the Amendment is to induce the Government not to insert provisions in the Clause that will have the effect of setting up new voluntary organisations for the purposes of this work. Those of us who have followed the Bill from its initial stages will remember that there is a supervising authority which can hand this work out to welfare councils and voluntary organisations, but the Government have inserted a provision in this Clause which goes beyond that. It invites the formation of new voluntary organisations to undertake the work that has to be performed under this Bill when it has passed into law. We have been taunted on this side of the House that we are opposed to voluntary organisations. I suppose that there is no body of men in this land who have done more voluntary work than we have done. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will repeat that. statement. I suppose that there is no body of people in this land who have done more voluntary work than we have done. There is no challenge to that statement. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could come with us on occasions when we deliver speeches on behalf of our cause they would be astonished to find out how much we get for them. Not the amount that hon. Members think we get.
I want to make my position quite clear. Whatever opinions may be held

about voluntary organisations, the introduction of this Bill to set up a salaried midwifery service is in itself a condemnation of voluntaryism in connection with confinements and childbirth. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced his Bill and is compelling local authorities to engage salaried midwives because he and his Department have found out that voluntary efforts have failed to make an impression upon maternal mortality. If that were not the case, why does he introduce such a Bill at all?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. Member is now getting very much wider than the scope of his Amendment.

Mr. DAVIES: I was just saying that, Sir, in order to lead up to the next point. The point I want to make is this: Suppose that we accept, as we a-re bound to do, because the Government are able to carry the Clause, the two organisations, the welfare councils under the supervising authority and the voluntary organisations. Really it is an offence to our intelligence, when we are opposed to voluntary organisations doing this work at all, to suggest in a Clause that voluntary organisations should be induced to come into being to undertake this work. Therefore the purport of my Amendment is to remove the inducement to the establishment of new voluntary organisations to do this work. My point is strengthened because of this fact: I do not know how many voluntary organisations there are in this country who can undertake this work, but of one thing I am certain. There is a county council in every county in the land.

Sir R. TASKER: Who register midwives.

Mr. DAVIES: I think the hon. Gentleman sees my point of view. I am helped beyond measure to have the support of the hon. Gentleman, who has such a wide experience of these matters in connection with the London County Council. The provision about which I am 'speaking should not be included in the Bill at all. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. First of all, there is a local authority covering the whole of this land—county council, borough council, urban council or parish council. In this country we have covered every inch of the territory with elected local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman wants


new voluntary organisations to compete with the local authorities. That is what he is after. While he is in office—and that will not be for so very long, I am sure—I suppose he will do what he can to encourage into existence new voluntary organisations, and we oppose the cultivating and bringing into existence of any voluntary organisations for the purposes of this work. We think that the Plymouth Town Council can do this job better than any voluntary organisation in Plymouth supported by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor).

Viscountess ASTOR: You are wrong.

Mr. DAVIES: I very much doubt whether the Noble Lady would stand on a public platform in Plymouth and say that the Plymouth Town Council is not as competent as a voluntary organisation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The discussion is becoming rather discursive, and I would ask the hon. Member to keep rather more closely to his Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: On a point of Order. Will you tell me what I must do? The hon. Member has spoken of the Plymouth Town Council. I want to be in order. Can I answer that statement now, or must I sit silent?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lady would be out of order if she did reply.

Mr. DAVIES: It is a matter of temperament. I was rather led away by the Noble Lady. I have put my case, with certain interruptions, and I want to reach my final point. Existing voluntary organisations may be called upon to do this work, but we think that it is. too large an order to say in an Act of Parliament that new organisations should be created for the purpose of doing work that is obviously the duty of the local authorities.

6.32 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: This matter was fully discussed in Committee, and the Amendment now moved by the hon. Member was defeated. I think the reason why the Committee accepted the proposal in the Bill was not because they wanted to set municipal authorities against voluntary organisations but because they thought

that this proposal would be the most convenient in the circumstances for all concerned. There may be cases, especially in the rural areas, where voluntary organisations—I hope that I may be permitted to say—do excellent work in this connection and may want to extend, or it may be desirable that new organisations should be established. In those cases it would be for the local authority to make an arrangement with such new organisation as gave an undertaking to provide an efficient service. If there was any dispute it would have to come before me for decision. I think there can be very little objection to this proposal except on the part of those people who object to voluntary organisations as a matter of principle and think that they ought to be stamped out of existence. I cannot direct my argument to that point of view, but from the point of view of providing a fully efficient service through the local authorities and the voluntary organisations I commend the proposal in the Bill.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN: As I happened to be successful in getting this proposition inserted in the Bill in Committee, I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend refusing to allow the words to be taken out of the Bill. They were inserted at the request of the Queen's institute of District Nursing, who do an enormous amount of work in, I think, 62 counties. It was not really a question of extending the number of voluntary organisations, but of allowing district nursing associations to extend their work by appointing and using more district nurses for midwifery and maternity cases. That was the basis of the argument that I used in the Committee, it was accepted by the Committee and I am very glad that my right hon. Friend does not propose to accept the Amendment now moved.

Mr. BATEY: The Minister has not answered the Amendment on the Paper.

Sir K. WOOD: I have.

Mr. BATEY: No, you have not. There are three important questions in the Amendment. The first is this:
at least one month before first engaging midwives"—

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is dealing with the wrong Amendment.

Mr. BATEY: I am sorry.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: We desire to delete the words "or undertake to employ." The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) said that the Committee inserted those words on his representation, assisted by the great influence of the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary. We do not desire that those words should be inserted, because they are an invitation to voluntary organisations who have never before undertaken this work. It ought to be the local representatives on the local authority who should do this business, together with the voluntary organisation now in the work. The words "undertake to employ" invite other voluntary organisations to make an application. They will be able to make an application and if the local authorities do not satisfy them they will be able to appeal to the Minister. The Minister will then be able to say: "Although this voluntary organisation has not undertaken this work in the past I am going to allow it to undertake it in the future." The local authority possesses the facilities for doing

this work, and they ought to undertake it. The invitation to which I have referred seems to us to be dangerous. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead, West (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) who interjected a remark when the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that we assist in this voluntary work. We can speak as those with authority on the subject, because we have had experience. Some of us have been cradled in the work. We have been secretaries or treasurers of voluntary associations for at least a quarter of a century. We are now in the work and doing all we can. We are as much interested in voluntary associations as hon. Members in any part of the House, but we do not desire that there should be an extension to those voluntary associations who have not taken part in the past in midwifery work.

Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 123.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Apsley, Lord
Dawson, Sir P.
Holdsworth, H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
De Chair, S. S.
Holmes, J. S.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dodd, J. S.
Hopkinson, A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hare-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Drewe, C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hudson, R. S.(Southport)


Fireball, Sir J. D.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hunter, T.


Bossom, A. C.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Emery, J. F.
Jackson, Sir H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Entwistle, C. F.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Errington, E.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Bull, B. B.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Burghley, Lord
Fildes, Sir H.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Foot, D. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Furness, S. N.
Latham, Sir P.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Leckie, J. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lees-Jones, J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Levy, T.


Channon, H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Llddall, W. S.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Charlton, A. E. L.
Goodman, Col. A.W.
Lloyd, G. W.


Christie. J. A.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Grimston, R. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
McKie, J. H.


Crooke, J.S.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Magnay, T.




Maitland, A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Storey, S.


Mander, G. le M
Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salmon, Sir I.
Stuart, Hon. J. Moray and Nairn)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Salt, E. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, Sir A, M. (Farnham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Tate, Mavis C.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Touche, G. C.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Selley, H. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shakespeare, G. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Owen, Major G.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Palmer, G. E. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Peake, O.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Penny, Sir G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Petherick, M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wise, A. R.


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Sir W.
Withers. Sir J. J.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ramsden, Sir E.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wragg, H.


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.



Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Spans, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Dr. Morris-Jones and Mr. Cross.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards. R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A.


Batey, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (heath)
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F.
John. W.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith. Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chafer, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen. R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Compton, J.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parkinson, J. A.



Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 26, to leave out "undertake," and to insert "are willing."
In Committee I was successful in getting the words "undertake to employ" inserted in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys

Davies) suggested that they were not very happy words. The words which I am now proposing to insert have been suggested as being happier.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This is purely a drafting Amendment. It is a happier


phrase, and does not alter the meaning of the Clause at all.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I cannot understand the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should imagine that the words "undertake to employ" are very much better than "are willing to employ." The hon. Member seems to be playing with the House of Commons. First of all a voluntary association is to be willing to undertake, and now he wants the supervising authority to invite voluntary organisations into doing it. It is not worth dividing the House upon, but I do not think the hon. Member is a master of the English language.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I heard with astonishment the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the Amendment. It seems to me to make the task of a local authority a great deal more difficult than the words already in the Bill. The local authority has the responsibility, but if a voluntary organisation is willing to carry out part of the responsibilities, it should be a definite undertaking to which they can be held. Now a local authority is asked to find out which of the voluntary organisations in their area are willing to do the work, and on the assumption that this willingness will not be merely temporary but will enable the scheme to be carried out, they accept the assurance of the voluntary organisation. But if they get weary in well-doing after a little experiment, or do not persevere, their willingness has vanished. If they "undertake" they will be in an entirely different position. I am sorry that the Minister has accepted less stringent words than those already in the Bill.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: As the Minister has accepted these words, I wish he would give some explanation as to the difference they make. The explanation is that the words are happier. It sounds pleasant, but if you take the word "undertake" it is something which is capable of an objective test, there is something in writing, something which binds them, but I am not sure what test is to be applied to find out whether people are willing or not. If there is a test in one case and not in the other, I cannot see how the happiness of anybody is increased by accepting these words.

6.51.p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: This is a minor point. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) objected to the word "undertake" and criticised it in Committee, and we are now endeavouring to meet his point by putting in the words "are willing." Now, apparently, the hon. Member is objecting to these words. No doubt, however, need arise in the mind of any hon. Member. This is purely an indication by a voluntary organisation that it is willing to undertake this responsibility, but that is not the end of it. There must be a proper agreement in terms satisfactory to the local authority, and if there is any dispute between a local authority and a voluntary organisation then the matter comes before the Department.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: If a voluntary organisation says that it is willing to "undertake," and the local authority say that they do not want them, will you then interfere?

Sir K. WOOD: No, I shall not interfere. The local authority has the right to deal with this matter, and it will consider it from the point of view of the interests of the mothers in the district before anything else. But if there is any dispute between a voluntary organisation and a local authority the matter can be brought before me.
Amendment agreed to.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. FRANKEL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, after "organisations", to insert, "including conditions as to the auditing of accounts."
The Clause provides that a local authority must present a scheme, and when the Bill has passed a good many difficulties will arise, especially on the financial side. So far as local authorities are concerned most of them are carefully controlled for audit purposes; they are carefully watched in regard to their expenditure, which has to fall within certain limits, but under the Bill a local authority, having presented their scheme, and obtained approval from the Department, will have to make contributions to voluntary organisations. I am not suggesting that voluntary organisations do not carry out their work properly, but I


think that if public money is to be paid over to voluntary organisations we should be told how the expenditure is to be audited. The Amendment is purely to give the Minister an opportunity of telling the House how he proposes to give effect to what is necessary and desirable, that where public money is expended by a local authority or a voluntary organisation the accounts shall be properly audited in order to see that sums which properly come within the terms of the Bill are paid, and also that local authorities shall be able to determine matters of policy in regard to expenditure. I have no desire to discuss the question of local authorities and voluntary organisations, but I would like to mention that all members of local authorities are voluntary workers. The only difference is whether this work would be more efficiently done through local authorities than through some of the organisations which hon. Members opposite prefer. I hope the Minister will welcome this opportunity of telling us how voluntary organisations are going to prove that the expenditure has been properly made and comes within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The hon. Member has raised a very important point. One must be satisfied where public money is spent that there are proper safeguards in regard to its expenditure. We propose to draw up agreements which will operate in cases where the supervising authority makes an agreement with the voluntary organisations, and in these agreements there will be a Clause as to audits. In a circular we shall also call attention to the importance of seeing that the money granted is appropriated to the proper purpose.

Mr. FRANKEL: In view of the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for West-hough ton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I suggest that this Amendment and the next four

Amendments might be discussed together if that meets with the wishes of the House.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (5).
If the House will bear with me I will try to make clear the point we have in mind. Sub-section (5) reads:
If an authority does not propose to make an arrangement with a welfare council or voluntary organisation which employs domiciliary midwives in the area of the authority, or if any such council or organisation is dissatisfied with the arrangements proposed to be made—
(a) the council or organisation may, within two months after the proposals of the authority are submitted to the Minister, make representations to the Minister.
We are dealing here with what we regard as a vital principle. The local authority in this country is made up of properly elected persons, but it would appear from the words of which I complain that if a local authority does not deem it wise to ask a voluntary organisation to undertake this task, the voluntary organisation can challenge the supervising authority. I have seen in my experience in Parliament local authorities challenging the Government; I have seen the Government taking local authorities into account. But I have never thought that I would see the day when a voluntary organisation could challenge a county council or a county borough, and here we have a provision by which that can be done. A welfare council falls it to a different category from a voluntary organisation and the point we want to make here is this. Of all the things which the right hon. Gentleman has inserted in this Bill, this one is beyond my comprehension. Although he is a Tory, a blue-blooded Tory, a reactionary of the worst type in politics, I never thought that he would descend to giving power to a voluntary organisation to challenge the constitutionally and properly elected local authorities. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) whenever I speak seems to be annoyed.

Viscountess ASTOR: Amused.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not know why. I thought that I could carry her with me, at any rate, in this proposal, because


she seldom challenges anybody except the brewing trade, and on that score I am with her up to the hilt. But we are not dealing with that to-day, otherwise I would be led off the track once again. But how comes it about that the right hon. Gentleman has inserted this power in the Clause? I want to move that it be deleted because this is a principle in local government which he himself will come to regret if he allows it to pass. I do not know how long he will be Minister of Health, but just imagine him sitting in his Department in Whitehall, and there comes to him a group of ladies, six or ten, from a large county like Yorkshire or Lancashire on a deputation to him to say that they have a complaint to make about the Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, or Bradford corporations. That a group of people of that kind, with no responsibility to the public, should have power to challenge a corporation or county council is a serious principle to insert in an Act of Parliament, and because of that I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

7.6 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that I need detain the House long on this matter. The House will be aware of the proposal in the Bill, namely, that we hope to institute this new service by the co-operation of the local authorities and the voluntary organisations wherever it is possible to do so. All that this Clause proposes is that where there is a voluntary organisation carrying on their work in the district, and they are unable to come to an arrangement with the local authority, either that they should not be employed at all or concerning the arrangements to be made in the locality regarding the new service, the voluntary organisation should have the right to come to the Minister of Health to determine the difference between the local authority and the voluntary organisation.

Mr. RHYSDAVIES: If a local authority determines to employ a sufficient number of midwives in their own area, or employ some of the midwives now employed by a voluntary association and complete their scheme to the right hon. Gentleman's own satisfaction as Minister, will the voluntary organisation still be able to go to him and complain about that?

sir K. WOOD: It is difficult to take a case which one has directly in mind. Very few local authorities at the moment, I am sorry to say, employ midwives at all. If there were a case of a local authority and a voluntary organisation, and the local authority wanted to employ all the midwives and put on one side the voluntary association, the voluntary association has the right to come to the Minister and say in these circumstances, "It is unreasonable for the local authority to want to employ a new set of midwives when we have a sufficient number of midwives in our employment, and we come to the Minister to determine on a scheme whereby both sources of midwives could be used." That is reasonable. I do not see the constitutional danger, because under the proposal in the Bill the action taken by whoever may be Minister of Health can be challenged here, and that constitutes an additional safeguard in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will only put on one side this unreasoning dislike of voluntary organisations and look on the matter from the point of view of getting an efficient service and of using all the agencies we have in the matter, he will see that this, is a practical provision.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. E. DUNN: I am not happy in re. gard to this Clause. The view I have formed is that it is distinctly weighted on the side of the voluntary organisation. As one who has made some contribution to voluntary organisations, this seems to be entirely one sided. I do not regard Sub-section (5) as it stands as being good local government. This Bill is intended to secure a certified salaried midwifery service, and it is intended to make the county councils of England and Wales the supervising authorities. I submit that their job will be to review the whole of their county areas with a view to establishing the necessary machinery to carry out the provisions of this Bill when it becomes law, and I cannot appreciate why the Minister of Health should seek to insert a provision of this description if he is really proposing to secure the efficient midwifery service which this House and this country think he is seeking to secure, because the voluntary organisations will have a more prominent place in the service than the local authority.
The attempt in this Bill throughout should be to place the local authority as the supreme authority throughout the country, and if these provisions are allowed to stand, the position of the local authorities, who are anxious to carry out the provisions of the Bill and to do the work properly in the interest of motherhood in this country, will be seriously handicapped. I do not know that we are entitled to take so easily the very grave manner which the Minister has employed both in Committee and in this House to secure the passage of this Bill, because this is giving to the welfare councils and the voluntary organisations a place which the country does not expect them to have. The local authority is the authority to which the country ought to look to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I beg the Minister to accept the Amendment.

7.13 p.m.

Sir R. TASKER: I beg the Minister to stand firm. An hon. Member talked about democratic assemblies, county councils and the like. Perhaps the House will permit me to read a decision by the greatest municipal authority in the world in reference to a grant for midwives:
In communicating this decision they point out"—
that is the county council—
that fixation of the amount is necessarily a matter of which the council alone can be the judge, and it must be understood that such decision is final. In the circumstances no useful purpoe will be served by seeking an interview either with the council or individual members in the matter.
That seems a very arbitrary and dictatorial attitude to take up. What the Minister is suggesting is that there should be a court of appeal. It is recognised in many matters where differences arise that the final court of appeal is the Minister of Health. I hope that the Minister will stand firm.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I was surprised to hear the Minister when he spoke on this striking a note of no confidence in local authorities. He may shake his head, but when to-morrow morning he reads in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he stated, he will see that he has not been backing up the authorities of which he is the head. It is clear from the Clause that the local authorities must approach the other

people for the purpose of making arrangements and not the other people approach the local authorities. The Clause says:
If an authority does not propose to make an arrangement with a welfare council or voluntary organisation which employs domiciliary midwives in the area of the authority, or if any such council or organisation is dissatisfied with the arrangements proposed to be made—
The voluntary organisations are being given a double-barrelled gun. In the first place, if the local authority does not make arrangements, the welfare council or voluntary organisation can complain; and secondly, if the local authority does make arrangements and those arrangements are not satisfactory either to the welfare council or to the voluntary organisation, it may appeal to the Minister.
Let me say frankly that all the time the Minister has been throwing his weight on the side of the voluntary organisations as against his own local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may say "No," but I say "Aye." I attended the Committee upstairs, and I believe I missed only one meeting, and I know that ever since he spoke in the Second Reading Debate, the Minister has been backing these voluntary organisations, which shows a lack of faith in the people over whom he has supervision. Without throwing any stones at the voluntary organisations, we on this side contend that the local authorities, which have been elected by the people, ought to have the responsibility for carrying out this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. We entirely object to Sub-section (5) of the Clause. Apparently the Minister thinks that whatever we may say on this side of the House, whether it be good, bad or indifferent, he must oppose it simply because it conies from this side. That has been the spirit in which he has approached the discussion all the time. In Committee upstairs we tried to make this Bill as good as we could and I am bitterly disappointed that the Minister again says "No" on this Subsection. There is an Amendment down in my name to delete the words "voluntary organisation," because, while we believe that a welfare council can be thoroughly supervised by a local authority, we feel that a voluntary organisation ought not to enter into this matter.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I think the last words of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) rather indicated that his attitude on this Clause is part of the general attack upon voluntary organisations being in this scheme, and that to some extent takes away from the force of the hon. Member's attack on this particular Clause. I do not know why Subsection (5) should have created such great excitement. It seems to be regarded as an insult levelled by the Minister at the local authorities, but I do not think it is that. The position is that we have a particular branch of the health services which has so far been left in the hands of voluntary organisations. Now, rightly in my view, the local authorities are being brought in, and the whole matter is in the main being put on a public footing, but the voluntary organisations are being retained in existence in order that there shall be a blended service. In the initial stage, where there is a blended service, where the new element and the old element have to co-operate with one another, there will perhaps be difficulties, things will perhaps go easier in the case of some local authorities than in the case of others, and surely it is natural that in this Bill the Minister should reserve to himself some power to act as a court of appeal for the voluntary element in the early stage. I am very glad that this Clause is included, because I desire that the voluntary element should grow in along with the other. It is I believe in accordance with our traditions of progress that we should not abolish the old altogether at a stroke, and bring in a new system, but should allow the valuable elements in the old to go along with the new. To secure that it seems to me that the Minister was bound to include something in the nature of Subsection (5), and I hope he will preserve it.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. MARSHALL: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) in his rather pathetic attempt to retain what many of us on this side of the House believe to be something which has now passed its usefulness. It seems to me that the ideal maternity service would be one under the orders of the medical officer of any great city and carried out by the servants employed by his department. The Minister

seems to be running a dual system in this matter. He is giving a certain measure of local control and what may be called municipalisation of this service, and at the same time he is endeavouring to retain the voluntary system. In my opinion Sub-section (5) is based on the assumption that the Minister cannot trust local authorities to carry out this service, and he is going to compel them, even if it be against their own will, to enter into contracts and arrangements with voluntary associations. Why should the Minister coerce the local authorities? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a local authority knows its own business best; it knows the local circumstances and it has the experience possibly of a long-continued administration in this connection.
I come from a city which has done a great deal in this direction. Is the Minister going to say to Sheffield, which has set up maternity hospitals and brought about a vast improvement in the service, that it must, against its better judgment, make arrangements with some voluntary association? I think the situation will be intolerable. May I refer to a comparable case? There are certain local authorities which have been beginning to operate the 1922 Act which deals with blind persons. Have the associations for the welfare of the blind the right to appeal to the Minister when the local authorities take over their functions? I have not heard that that is so. I know of local authorities which have taken over those functions and have administered the affairs of the blind better and more efficiently than the voluntary organisations, and have contributed to the happiness of these unfortunate individuals in a manner which has been beyond all praise. Nobody in this House suggests that the local authorities should be compelled to make arrangements with the voluntary associations which have been carrying out that work.
I wish to pay my tribute to the splendid pioneer work which voluntary organisations have done, but I would at the same time tell the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough that we have reached the time when, in the interests of public health and public efficiency, we have to say to the voluntary organisations, "We thank you for having done this work and we now propose that it should be taken


over by the great local authorities." I can imagine what an outcry there would be if we tried to continue voluntary associations in the administration of smallpox hospitals. We believe that it is in the interests of public health that those hospitals should have been taken away from voluntary associations. I am sure that the House really believes that we have reached the position where this vital and important service with which we are now concerned should be taken completely out of the hands of voluntary associations and placed under the jurisdiction of the public health authorities of our great cities.

7.26 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: It seems to me that on the question of voluntary organisations the House is fighting over again a battle which was fought out almost ad nauseam during the Committee stage. I suppose that is inevitable on the Report stage when there are present hon. Members who were not in the Committee. I would like to say briefly what I said more than once during the Committee stage. I think the Labour Opposition, with which I very often find myself in agreement, is on this particular question showing a curious time-lag in its thinking. Its arguments are old and musty, as though they had been kept in storage for the last 20 years. They seem to think of voluntary organisations as in the days of the Lady Clara Vere de Vere and the Lady Bountiful, as organisations of well-to-do people who cannot deal with the poor, as they would call them, except in a spirit of patronage, expecting meekness and servility from them. That is really a little unfair.
Any hon. Member who has been in touch with the great voluntary organisations knows that in general, although not always, the difference between them and the local authorities on a subject such as this is that the voluntary organisation is, after all, a voluntary organisation, and that nobody becomes a member of it unless he or she is interested in the particular problem with which it deals. I am sure that if hon. Members who have spoken against this Sub-section could be brought into touch with some of the men and women who are doing this work, they would realise the absurdity of their arguments. The people concerned are

men and women—naturally very largely women—who have specialised on this problem, who know it from A to Z, who are skilled in the whole technique of midwifery and nursing services, who know every woman who works under them and are deeply interested in their well-being, and who know the latest scientific experiments being conducted abroad to improve the standards.
Against that you have a local authority. I may say that an hon. Member who objected to this work being left to voluntary organisations told me a few minutes ago that his particular local authority has only one woman on it among 50 men, and he claimed that she was an expert on this subject. There you have the case of a local authority with one woman among 50 men dealing with a problem which even the most ardent anti-feminist must admit to be a woman's problem, and it is suggested that all the expert work of the voluntary organisations should be swept away because of a stupid, old-fashioned, musty prejudice against voluntary organisations. I suppose that Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb are not inconsiderable experts on the subject of Labour politics and organisations, and that if ever there were people who believed in the bureaucrat, they do. Yet they have never taken the line which the Opposition is taking to-day regarding voluntary organisations; they have always made a point that the voluntary organisations should retain the delicate personal work where something rather more individual is needed than can be got from an ordinary local authority.
The time has now come for a great development and none of us wishes all the work to be left to the voluntary organisations. There are places where there are no voluntary organisations capable of doing the work and other places where they are working on old-fashioned sleepy lines; in those cases it is desirable that the local authority should be able to take over the work. But it would be nothing less than madness to sweep away all the acquired experience of the voluntary organisations and say to all those devoted men and women that their work is to be taken over by the local authorities, very likely local authorities knowing nothing whatever about the skilled side of midwifery and nursing work.

Mr. MARSHALL: On a point of Order. Does the hon. Lady suggest that a man who attends a committee meeting once a week knows more about this matter than a medical officer of health?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Miss RATHBONE: As I did not hear what the hon. Member said, he will forgive me if I do not reply. As for this Amendment, what does it do but say that a voluntary organisation which has given years of work in dealing with this question is to be swept away without any right of appeal to the Minister? It is not always the people who want to sweep away voluntary organisations who know what is best for the good of midwifery and the good of the working mother. They are often just people who are obsessed with a rapid stupid prejudice against voluntary organisations, a prejudice which, I think, some hon. Members have been showing in these discussions. There ought to be a right of appeal to the Minister on the part of these organisations. The time may come, when municipal and other authorities have experimented a great deal and have built up their own experience and when the voluntary organisation may fade away, but that time is not yet. It is a serious thing to jeopardise the vital interests of women whose lives are at stake, for whom it may be a question of life or death whether or not they get the best sort of midwife, trained in the best way and working according to the best traditions, just for the sake of a general, theoretical, doctrinaire prejudice against voluntary organisations.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I think when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister spoke about Mrs. Gamp he must have had the hon. Lady in mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I have been listening to extraordinary opinions from extraordinary quarters on this Amendment. We have the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) a Liberal, attacking the Labour party on an Amendment which seeks to apply democratic principles. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, the Amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities shall have the power of decision and shall not be dictated to by

bodies which are not elected by the people.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: Will the hon. Gentleman, from such knowledge as he has of Liberal tradition, inform me wherein it is alien to Liberal traditions to stand up for voluntary organisations?

Mr. LUNN: My point is that this Subsection provides that if a local authority does not make an arrangement with a voluntary organisation, that voluntary organisation is to have the right to go over the head of the local authority to the Minister. Many of us have been members of local authorities for many years before coming here and we are not inclined to take up the defence in a matter of this kind of any body which is opposed to the local authority. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) will remember, as I remember, the women's suffrage movement in this country. I fought a by-election before the War and I was very proud to have the support of the women's suffrage movement. Women got the vote and yet the hon. Lady comes here to-day to defy the vote of the people in the interests of outside bodies which are not elected.
We cannot agree to the idea that a voluntary organisation, however many people may be in it, should have this right. In many cases a voluntary organisation may consist of only two or three people in a locality, who want to interfere with everything and to be able to overcome the local authority by going to the Minister. We get a lot of that kind of thing in many of our large towns. Many prominent business men never take any part in local government, and never do anything for their fellow-citizens except complain about the local authority. Here we have the Minister playing up to that sort of thing. I say that we are justified in seeking to defend local authorities and to prevent them from being interfered with by busybodies who ought to have no power of this kind at all.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left Out, to the word 'or,' in line 6, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 205, Noes, 120.

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[7.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Albery, Sir I. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fildes, Sir H.
Nall, Sir J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Apsley, Lord
Furness, S. N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
O'Neill Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Astor. Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gledhill, G.
Owen, Major G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gluckstein, L. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Peaks, O.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peat, C. U,


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Penny, Sir G.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Blaker, Sir R.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Radford, E. A.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Holmes, J. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brown, Cot. D. C. (Hexham)
Hopkinson, A.
Remer, J. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bull, B. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burghley, Lord
Hunter, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D (L'derry)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)


Cortland, J. R. H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cary, R. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Salmon, Sir I.


Channon, H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salt, E. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Keeling, E. H.
Selley, H. R.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crooke, J. S.
Leckie,J. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Levy, T.
Strauss, E.A. (Southwark, N.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Liddall, W. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dawson, Sir P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampoon, Comdr. O. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodd, J. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Drewe, C.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Wakefield, W. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duggan, H. J.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dunne, P. R. R.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Eastwood, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Magnay, T.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maitland, A.
Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel G.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mander, G. le M.
Wise, A. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wragg, H.


Entwistle, C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.



Errington, E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Dr. Morris-Jones and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Bellenger, F.
Compton, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.


Adamson, W. M.
Bevan, A.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Bromfield, W.
Dagger, G.


Amman, C. G.
Brooke, W.
Dalton, H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, Rt. Hon. j. (S. Ayrshire)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Banfield, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Day, H.


Barnes, A. J.
Chater, D.
Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)


Barr, J.
Close, W. S.
Ede, J. C.


Batey, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)







Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Shinwell, E.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leslie, J. R.
Short, A.


Frankel, D.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Gallacher, W.
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Gardner, B. W.
Macdonald, G. (Inca)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Malnwaring, W. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Marklew, E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Marshall, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hardle, G. D
Montague, F.
Thorne, W.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Muff, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, D.
Parker, J.
Walker, J.


Jagger, J.
Parkinson, J. A.
Watson, W. McL.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Potts, J.
Westwood, J.


John. W.
Price, M. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lathan, G.
Rowson, G.



Lawson, J. J.
Salter, Dr. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lee, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 5.—(Compensation to midwives ceasing or required to cease practice.)

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, at the end, to insert:
or by a decision of an authority under the next following Sub-section.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. Are we to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you do not propose to call the Amendment in my name, in page 7, line 1, to leave out "net"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not select the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, nor do I select the second Amendment and the third Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. BATEY: May I submit, Mr Speaker, that the word "net" raises a very important question on which we might be allowed to have some discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I cannot select the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The Amendment, which I have reason to believe and hope will find acceptance on all sides of the House, is put down in pursuance of a pledge given by the Minister in Committee. In Committee some exception was taken by Members on all sides to the provision in Sub-section (5) of Clause 5 which enables a local authority, without consulting the wishes of the midwife, to change her compensation from a

lump sum into the form of an annuity. While that was ostensibly for the benefit of the midwife, some of us took exception that it was really too much to give a local authority complete power to say in what form compensation which was given as a right should be given to a midwife, without consulting her or paying any attention to her wishes in the matter. Accordingly, I moved an Amendment which stated that this change could only be made to an annuity with the consent of the midwife. That did not find favour in the Committee, and it was withdrawn on the Minister saying he would consider the matter carefully.
This Amendment is the result of his consideration. It lays it down that any midwife aggrieved by the decision of a local authority to pay an annuity rather than a lump sum may have an appeal to the Minister. In theory, I very much prefer my own Amendment moved in Committee, because I believe that when compensation is given as a right, it is the recipient only who should decide what form that compensation should take. I believe it is a wrong principle that it should be allowed to be changed about without her consent, but in practice I think this Amendment will meet the case. I do not think this permission to give an annuity instead of a lump sum will in practice be very widely used; perhaps it will not be used widely enough, and I think the fact that this appeal to the Minister exists, whether it will be used or not, with all the con-


sequential bother and correspondence and delay that such procedure involves, will prevent any local authority using this power unreasonably. There is something to be said for the view that when the lump sum is small it is very often frittered away by the recipient, and there is something therefore to be said for giving the power to substitute an annuity for a lump sum, provided we are quite certain that the power will not be abused; and while, as I have pointed out, I do not think in principle this way of dealing with it is the best, I think in practice it will be found adequate.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We gladly accept the Amendment, and I think, from the experience in Committee, it is a proposal which met with favour from all sections of the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 19, after "The," to insert "whole or any part of any."
This is to enable a local authority, if it so desires, instead of paying out the compensation in the form of an annuity, to pay it partly in a lump sum and partly by way of annuity.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, to leave out "so decides" and to insert:
decides that it is in the interest of the midwife so to do.
The Committee will remember that we promised to make it clear that the local authority's decision as to the manner in which the compensation should be dealt with should be taken by reference to the interest of the midwife, and we put in words to give effect to that promise.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: This Amendment raises a most important question. I am sorry that my Amendment to leave out Subsection (5) was not called. However, you decided otherwise, Mr. Speaker, and one is bound to submit to your ruling. But this Amendment is, in my opinion, a most ridiculous Amendment. Here the midwife surrenders her certificate. She

is entitled to compensation, but she has no power to decide whether she shall be paid a lump sum or not. If the local authority decides that she shall not be paid a lump sum, but that she shall be paid an annuity, it is entitled to do so, if it says that it is in the interest of the midwife. I cannot understand that. In my opinion, if a -midwife is entitled to compensation, she ought to be paid the compensation, and it ought not to be in the power of a local authority, or it may be an organisation, to withhold the money from her and pay it as an annuity.
Then there is a reference to attaining the age of 70. She may die before she is 70, in which case she will have lost part of the money. The money belongs to no one except the midwife, and she is entitled to it, and there should be no authority given to anybody to withhold that compensation from her. I do not know whether we intend to divide on this question or not, but I think we should divide or at any rate protest against a midwife being robbed cf her compensation. Sub-section (5) is a strange Subsection. How can anyone tell when a midwife is going to die in order to pay the money over before she dies. She may die very suddenly, and then this money is lost. I hold that that money belongs to the midwife and that there should be no power given to anybody to retain it. It should be paid in a lump sum.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have interested myself in annuities and in pensions on retirement from world for some years past, and quite frankly, if I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), I have never yet come across cases such as he would propound here. I am within an annuity scheme myself, as employed by a trade union body, and it is not possible under my own annuity scheme for the full sum to be paid out to me while I live. I have to be subject to the process of an annuity, and an annuity, of course, is something that comes to people when they leave work where a pension scheme is not applicable. It seems to me that to accept the suggestion made now, that a midwife should be in a different position from that of any other employé of


a local authority where a superannuation or annuity scheme is in operation would be to do the midwife an injustice. My experience has been this—and I feel sure that every Member of Parliament will have had the same experience—that when old soldiers have compounded their pension, they have nearly always made a mistake. That is the universal experience. I have had very sad cases, and when a midwife arrives at 70 years of age—

Mr. BATEY: It may apply when she is 50.

Mr. DAVIES: I will use the age of 60. There are people around some of these old folk who are a little bit too smart for them, and may I, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor not to press his opposition to this Amendment, because the experience that we have had of old people receiving lump sums of money has almost invariably been that we have all felt that it would have been better if an annuity had been bought for them and a smaller sum provided for them week by week throughout their lives.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN: I am glad my hon. Friend is asking the House to put in these words, for other reasons than those mentioned by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I spoke on the Committee on this matter, and the view that I took then, and take now, is that this question of compensation for midwives is a matter which will be considered by the local authorities only in the next two or three years, until the number of practising midwives is reduced to the number required, until the surplus is got rid of. Therefore, there will be, or there might be, the temptation among certain local authorities to get rid of this liability in one lump sum, and it might be in the interests of the mid-wives themselves not to have a lump sum in certain cases, but an annuity, or part in a lump sum and part in an annuity. It was that temptation on the local authorities that I felt might exist which prompted me to speak in Committee on this point, and I am glad the Minister has agreed to this suggestion.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I take the view on this matter that was expressed by my hon.

Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), but I am bound to say, as a member of a local authority, that I have no desire to see any point in what was said by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan). The local authorities take this money and invest it with some insurance company or other persons who will pay the annuity, and, therefore, they have parted with the capital sum forthwith, whether they pay it in a lump sum to the annuitant or to the insurance company, and I do not think it makes any difference to them which way it is done. But I am bound to say that I see this provision in the Bill with a great deal more satisfaction in view of the acceptance of the Amendment which was recently moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), because it does enable the midwife, if she is in a position where she can usefully use the lump sum herself, to appeal to the Minister of Health, and I am sure the Minister of Health, in any decision which he gave, would have regard to the way in which she proposed to use the sum of money, and to the people around her who might be tempted to persuade her to get the money in the belief that they could use it a great deal better than she could. We must make quite sure that she is protected from that type of person.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Miscellaneous amendments of Midwives Acts.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (3).
We do not anticipate that this Amendment will be highly controversial, but that depends upon the reply of the Minister. Our reading of this Sub-section has led us to assume that where midwives, as a result of the Bill, are compelled to attend the refresher courses, they will be charged one guinea on each occasion, either for the examination or the certificate, or, it might be, for the certificate and the examination. We feel that the payment which midwives are likely to receive is not so enormous as to enable them to meet these charges repeatedly. We understand that the refresher courses will be arranged by the medical officer acting on behalf of the local authority, and it will be incumbent on midwives to attend them and the examinations. I


am moving this Amendment in the main for information, for we hope that the Subsection does not mean that midwives will have to pay repeated charges of one guinea for examinations and certificates.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN: As I moved the Amendment embodied in this Sub-section in Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to explain what I then endeavoured to explain. The position is roughly that under the existing rules of the Central Midwives Board a fee of one guinea is required for each entry in the board's examinations, subject to the qualification that a pupil midwife who has entered for an examination but is prevented by illness from attending or completing her examination, is permitted to sit for a fee of half a guinea. In the new training rules which the board are shortly to pass, provision is made for a first and second examination to take the place of the present single examination, and if the expenses of the examinations are to be covered by fees, it will be necessary as the law stands at present, to charge a fee of one guinea for each examination. This Sub-section was put in the Bill to enable the Central Midwives Board to charge less than a guinea for each examination.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) said something about half a guinea, but there is nothing about it in this Subsection. It says clearly that it has been one guinea in the past and that it shall now be one guinea for each examination or certificate in future. Many hon. Members have been trying to protect voluntary organisations, but we want to protect the midwives, and we want this Subsection deleted unless the Parliamentary Secretary can satisfy us that midwives are not going to be robbed more than they were before.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman who moved to delete this Sub-section that the Sub-section provides a reasonable amendment to the law. It was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) on behalf of the Central Midwives Board. All that it does is to regularise the position, which, in fact, exists now. It

has no relation to refresher courses and it does not concern fees to be charged for those courses. In fact, no fee will be charged because a refresher course is only in respect of a woman who is already a midwife. All this Sub-section does is to authorise the fee to be charged in respect of women studying for midwifery and undergoing examination by the board. If a woman takes a number of examinations, she will pay a small fee for each examination. Hon. Members opposite can rest assured that the Minister has the last word because the scale of fees for these examinations has to be submitted to him and comes under his jurisdiction.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
After appropriate time has been given to the consideration of this Bill in the Committee stage and again to-day on the Report stage, the House will not expect another long and detailed explanation of its provisions. We claim that it is a useful and important Bill, which adds another storey to the edifice which we are seeking to build in order to secure safer motherhood. I need not remind the House that for some years a number of strong departmental and voluntary committees have called the attention of successive Governments to the necessity of strengthening and improving the midwifery services, and it falls to our lot to supplement and to bring those recommendations into effect. This Bill substantially follows the line of attack recommended by the Joint Council of Midwifery, on which served representatives of nearly every body directly or indirectly interested in midwifery, whether doctors, nurses, midwives, obstetricians, or voluntary bodies. A number of other persons served, including the wife of the present Prime Minister, who has devoted a great deal of study and time to this problem, the daughter of an ex-Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Anglesea (Miss Lloyd George), and, last but not least, the hon. Gentleman who has now rejoined his party and has tried to go back on that


agreement and findings to which he acquiesced when he was on the Committee.
I am not going into detail on the provisions of the Bill. I want to consider three aspects of it—first, how it affects the mother; second, how it affects the midwife; and, third, how it affects the nation. Under the provisions of the Bill, when the schemes are in operation, every expectant mother, whatever her circumstances, will know that she can call on the services of a well trained midwife either to act as a midwife in the absence of the doctor, or, if a doctor is in attendance, to act as maternity nurse during the lying-in period, which will be a period corresponding with that period laid down by the Central Midwives Board as the proper period for a midwife to be in attendance on a woman in childbirth. Those who know anything about this subject will rejoice that, during the passage of this Bill, we have taken an important step to increase that period of attendance. The rules of the Central Midwives Board refer only to a midwife acting as a midwife, and we take steps to secure, through the service we are organising, that there will be sufficient midwives available to act in the capacity of maternity nurses for women after childbirth for the same period of 14 days, which I understand, will be the period chosen. Therefore, a considerable advance, which has long been asked for by people in maternity work, has been conceded.
The expectant mother need no longer rely for maternity nursing on the services of an unqualified nurse. There are some parts of the country where the practice has grown up of women receiving attendance from persons utterly unqualified, and it has long been thought by people in maternity work, and it was a strong recommendation of the Joint 'Council, that this practice should be ended. We do away with it in this Bill. When the Minister has made an order in respect of an area that a midwifery service is in being, it will be illegal for any woman who is not a qualified midwife, or whose name does not appear on the general register as a State nurse, or who does not possess an obstetric certificate gained from an approved hospital, to attend on a woman as a maternity nurse for gain. That does not mean that the position of the home help is in any

way affected. The position of the home help, who does the housework and looks after the children and performs manifold duties, will, of course, go on as heretofore. In the past the expectant mother in poor circumstances has sometimes found it difficult to shift for herself, as she has not always been in a position to command the best trained attendants, but in the future and under this Bill every mother, whatever her circumstances, will know that she has a claim on this highly organised and skilful service; and if her poverty is such that she cannot afford the fees laid down by the local authority or the voluntary society the fees can, under the provisions of the Bill, be remitted. As regards the mother, I think this Bill is taking a step forward of which all those interested in maternal welfare will cordially approve.
Let me put in a parenthesis which is not meant to be controversial, because I hope the era of controversy is over, but just to record the fact that in securing this benefit for mothers we are adopting what I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) called the English method, a partnership between the local authorities and voluntary efforts. We have taken ample safeguards to make sure that voluntary effort, which has pioneered in this field of endeavour, shall not be cut out, and, indeed, the experience of voluntary effort, of the county nursing associations all over the country, is one of the main justifications for the Bill. If throughout the whole country we can achieve the low figures of mortality which they have brought about where they have been working we shall indeed think that something has been achieved. We intend, therefore, to utilise the enthusiasm and the initiative of that public spirit which always enriches British public life, and we do not apologise for it.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Gentleman stated that every poor mother would get this service free. Where is that stated in the Bill? The local authority have the power to fix the fees, and not the Ministry.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Power is given in the Bill for the local authority to remit the fees in case of poverty. The hon. Member is really living in a world of delusion if he thinks that we in the Ministry of Health can, from headquarters,


organise this service and fix the fees. What on earth is the great service of the local authorities for?
Next we come to the position of midwives under the scheme of this Bill. Instead of belonging to an underpaid and overcrowded profession, as the midwife does at present, she will have a chance of securing a, post in a properly organised service, that is, with adequate remuneration, with provision for relief in case of sickness and for holidays, and the duty is imposed on the local authority of providing the practising midwife with an opportunity to refresh her knowledge from time to time by special courses.

Miss RATHBONE: The hon. Gentleman has referred to adequate remuneration. Will he say what guarantee there is in the Bill that the remuneration will be adequate?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The hon. Lady knows quite well what my answer is going to be, because this point was debated at great length upstairs. Shall we lay down in the Bill the scale of the remuneration which we at headquarters think adequate?

Miss RATHBONE: Yes.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Shall we do something which cuts right across the whole spirit of local government? There is no office in the local authority service for which we fix the remuneration; but if in the general administration by local authorities, who surely must be trusted, we find that for some reason or other midwives are getting inadequate remuneration, we shall take the point up, because clearly an efficient service would not be forthcoming. I can assure the hon. Lady that in the circular we shall send out to local authorities we shall point out that one of the objects of the Bill is to secure a properly remunerated service, and that in considering the salaries to be paid the work of the midwife should be regarded as comparable with that of the health visitor. I think the hon. Lady will be satisfied with that.
I therefore make the point that the midwife, at present struggling in a. rather precarious position, will, if she secures one of the posts to be created under this Bill, get a large measure of security. I need not point out that we

feel justified in hoping that a service with a proper remuneration and with an increased standard of efficiency and training will attract to it women of high qualifications, and we trust that in the course of a few years we shall be able to say that we have gone a long way towards securing an efficient midwifery service. I like to think that midwives who have been struggling along for a number of years on mere pittances, sometimes working for charity, have at last received recognition and will have a chance of adequate remuneration if they join the scheme; and if they do not come into the scheme there is provision under the Bill for them to receive reasonable compensation, graded according to whether they retire voluntarily or compulsorily. Therefore, as regards midwives, I think the Bill does justice to them.
Thirdly, there is the interest of the nation in this matter. It is not necessary for me to make the point that the nation will surely gain from the strengthening of this vital public health service. When speaking the other day I tried to ensure that mothers of the future shall see this problem in its right perspective, because psychology does play a part in this matter, and we do not want to frighten mothers into thinking that the risks of motherhood are higher than, in fact, they are. If we turn the figures of maternal mortality into percentages, which is not often done, we find that out of every 100 mothers who give birth to children only 4 die. That percentage is the lowest in any country in the world in which figures are kept, with the possible exception of Holland. But while the death of 2,400 mothers a year out of a total of nearly 600,000 who give birth to children is not a percentage that need cause alarm to the new mother, it, is the peculiar poignancy and tragedy of death in childbirth which makes the Government and everybody else want to take whatever steps are possible to reduce the figures.
In any circumstances death is a tragedy. In some cases death comes suddenly, unforeseen, without warning, is swift, sudden and ruthless, but in the case of childbirth which, after all, is only a physiological and not a pathological happening, there is plenty of warning. There are months of preparation when precautions could have been taken. If, in


spite of that fact, the blow falls, the tragedy is hard indeed. There is left behind a sense of bitterness, and sometimes of remorse or heart-searching as to whether every step that could have been taken was taken. It is because of the tragedy and the poignancy of death in childbirth, and the effect upon the home life and the future of the children, that any Government must do its utmost to see that nothing is left undone that can be done to strengthen the service.
This Bill will help to reduce the figures of maternal mortality, but it would be foolish to claim that merely by the provision of an adequate midwifery service there will immediately be a fall in the maternal mortality statistics. The subject is so complex, and consists of so many factors, that, in the view of those who have studied it, it will yield only to an all-round tightening of each link in the chain of obstetrics and supervision. There must be unremitting watchfulness at every stage. Nevertheless, those who are in a position to speak assure us that no more useful step could be taken at the present moment than the organisation of this service. That very strong Departmental Committee which was set up in 1928, and which reported finally in 1932, stated in these words the reason for the Bill:
We are, however, convinced that the primary essential for the reduction of a high maternal mortality is sound midwifery, before, during and after childbirth.
That is the considered judgment of the most able committee which has ever studied this question of maternal mortality. In seeking to organise a sound midwifery service we hope that we are doing something to reduce the risk which attends women in childbirth. With this short introduction, I hope I have shown that the Bill will bring a measure of greater safety to the mother and of security to the midwife, and that it will increase the statistics of maternal welfare. I confidently submit this Bill for its Third Reading.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I have heard the whole of the discussion on the Bill, in all its stages. If we do not oppose it on the Third Reading stage, I can safely say that it is not because we are satisfied with it. I was considerably affected by certain portions of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but there were some parts of it

with which I did not agree. I am certain that all hon. Members would agree that the midwifery service of this country is far from what it ought to be. I do not believe that the Bill will revolutionise it, although I should like to think so. A good deal has been said about the voluntary organisations. Although we criticise the power which is being given to them, we recognise the work that they have done in the past. We pay tribute to that work, and we do not want to eradicate it in any way. We realise, however, that there is a good deal of leeway to make up before we can get everything that we desire in the form of an efficient midwifery service. It may be that the Bill will reduce maternal mortality. How readily we accept small mercies and think they are remarkable. So much objection is taken to Bills, and so much legislation is passed which is of a reactionary character, that when we have to consider a Bill like this we hear, as we heard upon the Second Reading of this Bill, compliments paid by speaker after speaker, and much gratitude shown for the very small mercies which are to come from the Bill.
This is a big subject which has baffled all the experts and all Ministers of Health for the last 30 years. There has been no reduction in the number of deaths of young mothers in childbirth during that time. We cannot measure the large number of mothers who have been physically ruined while going through that ordeal. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that every expectant mother has a right not only to a qualified midwife but to the opportunity of having the services of one. If the Bill will have that effect, I hope that qualified midwives will be provided in that way. We want the mother also to have a qualified medical man in attendance, although I am of the opinion that the midwife is far more important on these Occasions than is the medical man. There are hundreds of doctors who curse the job and do not like it at all, but the midwife lives for it, and if she is provided for I am satisfied that that provision will be in the interests of the young mother.
The Bill does not touch poverty in the home, or malnutrition. It does not deal with matters which, we all know, are contributory causes to the death and


the ruined physique of young mothers. We cannot number the sad homes which have been created as the result of our failure to provide an adequate health service in this country. The Minister of Health will have to do far more work than is provided for in the Bill, to help and to encourage local authorities in a more generous way than is the case today. The health visitor has been mentioned. She is an officer of the local authority, and is guaranteed an income which many of us think is reasonable. We should have been thankful if we had seen in the Bill a provision guaranteeing to the midwife something similar to the income which we have guaranteed to the health visitor.
We tackle the question of child welfare fairly well after the child has shed its long clothes, but the mother and the baby are still to be left largely, as a result of this Bill, to voluntary effort. We know the facts, and we ought to insist upon local authorities, backed by a Ministry that is progressive, being able to deal with the difficulties that have to be dealt with. We want more midwives than we have to-day; we want them well qualified for their work; we want them to have better pay, security of employment, and the certainty of a pension when they are past work. We are not sure that as a result of this Bill these things are guaranteed in the case of voluntary organisations, nor after reading the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading. That is why we take up the attitude that we do take up with regard to local authorities, for we seek efficiency in this matter. I know that the Money Resolution imposes limits on many matters which we should have liked to speak about and to see done. We should have liked, for instance, to see the question of compensation placed in the hands of the Ministry of Health, but the Bill does not do that.
The Bill will not cure the evil of maternal mortality, and, as evidence of that, I quote the speech of the Minister himself on the Second Reading. He said:
I would also like to say that in bringing forward these proposals, I recognise it may well be that other steps may be necessary.
Later on he said:
I am also not unmindful that we must neglect no well-considered further plans for

new schemes which will help to save the lives of the mothers and care for their health."—[0FricaL REPORT, 30th April, 1936; cols. 1129–1130, Vol. 311.]
I agree absolutely with that, but I cannot see that these things are going to be done in the present Bill, which I think ought to have gone much further than it does. The returns of the Registrar-General for the first quarter of this year show that during that quarter there were many thousand more deaths than births in England and Wales. I am not worried so much about the decline in the birth rate, though many people are, but I believe there is nothing more beautiful than to see a young mother with a healthy baby in her arms. I would rather see her in that condition than fondling a dog or a cat. I believe that, if a child is born, it should have every opportunity to grow up into a healthy man or woman. An efficient midwifery service will give the child that chance to be well borne, and that will be a good start. But we have more to do in order to provide that efficient midwifery service than we have done. There is a great work to be done in research, and in the provision of training for midwives so that we can have more and better qualified midwives for the service.
This Bill does not deal with those matters, nor does it do anything to provide more maternity hospitals, which ought to be provided, because we know that in the homes there are not always the facilities that there ought to be, and there is not the possibility of skilled treatment which ought to be at hand for every mother. I know that it would cost money to do the things which I am suggesting and which are not included in the Bill. A co-ordinated and efficient health service is bound to cost money, but in my view it is one of the best possible ways of spending money. I do not apologise for repeating what was said on the Second Reading—that if we can find additional money for the provision of armaments, which serve no useful purpose at all in my view, it would be better to spend money in trying to secure an efficiently organised, well equipped health service under the Ministry of Health and the municipalities.
I trust that the House will pardon me if, in conclusion, I make a personal reference. I have heard all the discussions on this Bill, and have taken a great interest


in it. I am very much concerned about our health services, and especially about the dangers of motherhood. I was appointed by my party to speak on the Third Reading of the Bill. This morning, when I got up, I was informed that I was wanted on the telephone by my son. thought that I was to hear of a happy event, but, instead, I learned that the young wife of my youngest son had died in childbirth this morning, tragically and suddenly. He has a good home, a good job, and good wages. They have been a very lovable couple, and I hardly knew what my duty was, because I have a family who are devoted to one another. This, I think, brings home to us the fact that, even when we have done all that I have asked for in the provision of an efficient health service from every point of view, even then they can slip through our fingers, they can pass away under conditions like that. Of course, in this case there has been not only a, doctor but a nurse continually in attendance on a very fine, healthy girl. It has, of course, been under tremendous difficulties that I have continued to take part in these proceedings to-day. It has only been because I am interested in this subject, and feel that, even if I am a loser at this moment of a delightful, lovely girl as the result of her wanting to be a mother, as I should have liked her to be, I want to see every provision that would make it possible, if it be possible, to prevent young mothers from going so easily as so many thousands of them do.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I am sure that everyone who has listened to the last speech will have been filled, not only with the deepest sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, but also with a very great admiration for the courage which has caused him to come to his place to-day, subordinating his private feelings to his sense of public duty. It is not easy to say anything new on the Third Reading of a Bill which has been fully discussed, especially if one happens to agree with the Bill, and, although the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pointed out, quite rightly, that there are matters which the Bill leaves unsolved—that it does not deal with those great problems of poverty and malnutrition which are connected with almost all our problems, and certainly with maternal mortality—still it is doubtful to my mind whether, under the title

and scope of a Midwives Bill, quite all of these things could be dealt with, and it is as a Midwives Bill that we have to deal with this Measure. Dealing with it as a Midwives Bill, and remembering that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a problem which has baffled all experience and all Ministers of Health, I think we should show some appreciation of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the efforts they are now putting forth, because we must all realise that it is no easy job that they have to tackle.
I am not going to pretend that everything in the Bill pleases me. I was unable to express myself as to the things I did not like because it would have been out of order. The Financial Resolution limited us. I simply say that I am not satisfied with the arrangements with regard to compensation, though I should be going beyond the Rules of Order if I indicated the way in which I would improve them. With regard to the voluntary organisations, 1 do not want to raise any controversial matters—the hon. Gentleman who spoke last was content to let that matter rest—but I hope there will be full co-operation between the new public service and the voluntary services that remain. It may be that the voluntary services are doomed to eventual destruction, but in the transitional stage their usefulness is not exhausted, and we should make use of them, as long as they last. I have risen only because I have taken an interest in the Bill from the beginning. On the Second Reading I wished it a short confinement and a happy delivery, and now I think we can all feel, those who have opposed and criticised it as much as its supporters, that we have acted as midwives to the Bill and we shall wish the child well in its future career.

8.47 p.m.

Sir R. TASKER: I join with the last speaker in expressing my admiration of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) for the courage that he has displayed in circumstances which are indeed sorrowful. I agree in very large measure with the sentiments that he expressed. All I will say of the voluntary service is that, if its sacrifice is necessary to save the lives of mothers, I am for it. I regard with horror the unnecessary loss of thousands of women's lives. I suppose all of us have had experience of one kind or another and we are a little loth to dwell on our own experience, but when


my first boy was born the doctor came to me and said, "Mother or babe, which?" Such a condition ought never to exist. We have never realised the mission of mercy performed by midwives, nor have we ever paid a sufficient tribute to that noble army of doctors who give their services free. I think this Bill might be termed a Bill to save life, and saving life is a far more glorious achievement than taking it. Midwives deserve security and they richly deserve added remuneration. I can remember the time when their remuneration was miserable and paltry, but we have altered all that. We have striven to see that there is adequate remuneration. We expect skill, sympathy and devotion from midwives, and we get it. I regard the birth of a baby as a miracle, the most wonderful thing on earth. It demands fortitude and courage on the part of the mother. There is something else that the midwife brings and that is tranquillity.
The Bill ensures the attendance of a midwife who is fully qualified. That is a most essential condition. We cannot get all we want in any Bill. I should very much like to see pensions. It will not be in order to discuss it, but I am sure it will be borne in mind. I believe that local authorities will see to it, when they employ these midwives, that they become pensionable and, if they should fall by the way in the performance of their duty, some of us will be prepared to appeal to the Minister to bring in a short Bill to ensure that these devoted women in their declining years have something more than an old age pension. I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for bringing the Bill in and to those Members who served on the Committee. I regret that I could not serve on it myself. Fewer greater or nobler works have ever been accomplished than the promotion of this Bill.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. ROWSON: Like the other hon. Members who have spoken previously, I do not rise to oppose the Bill and I do not intend to make a long speech, because I think there is general agreement in the House that at least this Bill, while it does not give us all we want, is a start for a properly organised midwifery service. Whatever may be its shortcomings, it will be something upon which future Parliaments can build and enlarge. I rise to

draw attention to one or two things in the Bill, and to mention one or two items with which I am dissatisfied. I do not like the voluntary organisations having so much power to spend public money and to be left in sole control of the service in their particular area as long as the Minister is satisfied with the scheme with which they began. I should like to see the whole thing put in control of the local authorities, because I am satisfied that justice is not always done under these voluntary organisations, not even justice to the nurses and to the midwives.
One of the main reasons why I have risen to speak on this Bill is because of a case which has been brought to my notice, and I hope that the Minister, if he is to hand out public money for voluntary organisations to spend, will at least watch with a paternal eye the activities of these voluntary organisations. I hope that in the future, if any of these midwives or nurses have a grievance over wrongful treatment or wrongful dismissal, they may have the opportunity of going to the Minister and asking for an inquiry, so that they can have a measure of justice. I can state a case. I have the particulars here of a nurse who was engaged as a district nurse and midwife under a voluntary organisation, and she has done all she can through the local authority, and the county council of the area, and I and a right hon. Gentleman in this House have drawn the attention of the Minister to her case, but because it is a voluntary organisation which has control of the particular service this nurse and midwife, who is an efficient woman, has no right of appeal. She has nobody to whom she can appeal and she cannot get any inquiry at all.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to me was that as this was a voluntary organisation, he had no right to interfere. If we are to hand out public money to voluntary organisations, and if some such circumstances as those arise, the Minister ought really to take such action as would enable the nurse or midwife to get some satisfaction and be treated in a proper and genuine way. In this case, there is no reason for dismissal so far as the evidence that has been submitted to me is concerned. It is in a very Conservative area, I admit,


but I understand that there is no reason for dismissal only that this nurse is a supporter of our party. I submit that if the voluntary organisations are going to carry on like that, it is time that we In this House took control of such services and took the power out of their hands. I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not stand behind such action as that, and that it only needs their attention to be drawn to such an injustice. In this case, I understand that if inquiry can be made, the facts that I am giving to the House can be substantiated. I have the whole case here in writing, and I have deliberately got up to mention it to-night while discussing this Bill, because there is no other means of making it public, and I know that hon. and right hon. Members on the opposite side of the House will agree that at least this nurse ought to have something done for her. It may be that by the passing of this Bill she may be able to table her case and obtain justice when it comes into operation.
There is another criticism that I want to offer in regard to the Bill. I wish that the Minister had afforded us the minimum of 14 days for the nurse to attend on the mother. It is all very well to say that it did not need to be put into the Bill. There has been much said on the sentimental side this afternoon about taking care of the mother and nursing her and so forth. I want to get away from that if I can, for this particular reason. There is no period in a woman's life when she is exposed, or has to submit, to such dangers as the period immediately following childbirth, and I submit to the Minister that 10 days after the confinement is not a sufficient time. I think that 14 days is little enough, and I hope that while that period has not been put into the Bill, he will urge the Central Midwives Board to adopt 14 days as the minimum period. It is necessary to watch the mother for more than 10 days. I claim, as one who has served on a midwives committee in Lancashire, that there is a big danger of puerperal fever supervening beyond the 10 days. If a doctor or a nurse was not in attendance beyond the 10 days, and there was an upward trend in temperature, the mother or those around her might not notice it. But if a nurse were attending the woman for three or four days longer until the mother had

got out of the danger period, she would be competent to take the temperature and would note any rise in the temperature and call in the doctor at once. I submit to the Minister and to the House that anybody who has seen a, case of puerperal fever and seen what it means to the mother, will realise that there is no more agonising disease, sickness or complaint in the world. It means a thousand tortures for the mother, very often ending fatally, and for that reason alone the Minister ought to do his best to get the 14 days as a minimum.
Another important consideration is that of the welfare of the child itself. The period immediately following childbirth is one of the most important periods of the child's life concerning its eyesight. It is necessary for people to be in charge of the child immediately following birth in order to take particular care of its eyesight. There is a disease which is known to anybody who has served on public health authorities or midwifery committees and knows how it is notified to those authorities. It is the disease of opthalmia neonatorum which has resulted in the blindness of many children. It may result in the impairment of the eyesight throughout the person's life if not properly taken care of at the beginning. Very often it can be nipped in the bud and prevented from developing into a much more serious disease if it is properly treated at the beginning by people who understand it. For that reason, again, I say that the period ought to be extended beyond the days mentioned in the Bill, and that someone competent to deal with such things should be there as long as possible.
I am glad that the Bill has been brought forward, because it is a start towards a nationally organised midwifery service. I should have liked more specific terms set out for the compensation of the midwives who will be displaced, but I am glad the Committee insisted that the Minister should have the power of deciding what the compensation should be, and that we are not to have the affairs of the midwives dragged into the county courts, so that morbid-minded people might be able to say: "I saw Mrs. So-and-So's case last week. She made so much in the last three years." It is much better that the Minister should have the power to decide the question rather than, as was suggested by some hon. Members, the cases


should go to the county court for trial. I hope that the Bill will be the forerunner of a much more efficient service in the days to come.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. SEXTON: I have listened with great interest to the long Debate on the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. I welcome the Bill, because I believe that it will be the gateway to a happier highway for the mothers of this country. What concerns me very much is the little progress that we seem to have made during the last 50 years in regard to maternal mortality. The health Measures which have been passed by this House have tended to save life in the younger years of the child's age and have also served to lengthen the lives of the older people, but in the matter of maternal mortality we have not been so successful. We have not kept the pace in that national field of health that we should have liked to have done. I will not burden the House with figures—although I was a schoolmaster I was never much good at figures—but I would point out that for the 10 years from 1924–33 the total maternal mortality was 27,645, which works out at a percentage of 56 of the total deaths in the country. A fairer comparison which ought to be made would be in respect of the number of women of child-bearing age. We find that the total number of deaths of women of child-bearing age in the 10 years 1924–33 was 434,652, and the maternal mortality 27,645, or a percentage of deaths of childbearing women of over 6 per cent.
We on this side of the House and hon. Members in all parts of the House much deplore that fact, and we deplore it more especially when we find that in the health reports and the British Medical Association Report it is pointed out that most of those deaths were preventable. The Health Department in their report say that at least one-half of those deaths could have been prevented. That report sets out certain recommendations. I will not weary the House with all the recommendations, but I will draw attention to one of them which is germane to the Bill. That recommendation is that there should be some improvement in the pre-certificate and post-certificate training of the midwife. I believe that the midwives of this country are receiving an adequate

education, but I have one complaint to make, and that is that the training is rather academic. They learn their theory and their practice, but it takes three things to make a trinity, and over and above the book learning and the actual practice that they get in their work as midwives there is one great essential point, not a physiological one but a psychological one.
The psychological factor should be urged upon midwives in their training. They ought to become the real friend of the mother. They ought to take a lesson out of the books of the old midwives. I stand on the Floor of the House of Commons and pay my tribute to those old midwives. All their equipment was an apron wrapped in a newspaper, but after 50 years the maternal mortality is no lower than it was in those old days. There is something of which we have not reached the bottom, and it is up to the Members of this House, the members of the medical fraternity, and the midwives to find out the one thing that is lacking in our knowledge of maternal mortality. I said that I would pay my tribute to the old midwives of the past, honorary midwives. I stand here as one who was brought into the world by an honorary midwife, and I am one of a huge family. Although their equipment was meagre they had a large fund of neighbourly kindness. If the midwives of to-day in their training will try to get that measure of neighbourly kindness, then in their ante-natal treatment of the mothers they will give the mothers the confidence which begets fortitude, and when the mother goes into the dark shadows she will know that she has with her a friend upon whom she can rely and who will bring her emerging out of those shadows to the delectable hills arid joys of motherhood.
I welcome this step forward, and it certainly is a step forward, with all its limitations. What I look forward to, and I hope that it will come soon, is the co-ordination of all our health services—the services dealing with housing, feeding, and clothing, and the services dealing with maternity, child welfare, health insurance and old age pensions. When we have that co-ordination of all those services we shall be able to look forward to a happier and brighter time and to tackle the problem of maternal mortality


among the mothers to be. In every mother to be I see a potential Madonna, and in every newborn child I see a potential deliverer, and God knows we want deliverers to-day. When we get down to the facts and try to find out what it is that we have to do, the day will be happier for this country and the world.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: There is a good deal in what the hon. Member has just said with which most of us on this side and indeed every Member of the House will agree. For a long time I have thought that the time has come when all available machinery ought to be mobilised for the benefit of expectant mothers, in order to cope with the great problem of maternal mortality. We welcome this Bill and we congratulate the Minister of Health on having piloted through the House what I think, and what many of us think, is one of the greatest social Measures of the day. As one who served on the Standing Committee dealing with the various Clauses of the Bill I should like to pay my tribute to the manner in which the Minister of Health met the various points that were brought up in full and frank discussion, and to say how much we appreciate the spirit which prompted him in bringing forward this vast Measure of social progress, which I hope will be passed to-night by the unanimous vote of the House.
Let me say a sentence or two about voluntary organisations. The Bill takes advantage of the machinery which has been set up by voluntary organisations throughout the country, and the Minister is quite right in saying that in this first attempt to deal nationally with this great problem he will take advantage of the assistance which voluntary organisations can give towards its solution. Much as I would like to see every piece of machinery mobilised and put into one comprehensive Measure to help the expectant mother, I welcome the attempt which is being made in the Bill to get the full benefit of voluntary organisations in forwarding the scheme, which I hope will meet with every success. For too long the question of maternal mortality has been looked upon from a party standpoint. Some time ago I burdened the House with a number of figures on maternal mortality, and it is manifest from those figures that you cannot dismiss this great question by saying that

it is due to malnutrition, or to the operation of any means test, or to the distressed areas.
There is no truth in any such allegation. It is a tragic fact that maternal mortality figures in the South of England, in places like Bournemouth, Brighton, Hastings and Eastbourne, where there is no unemployment, no question of malnutrition, nor any means test, are far greater than they are in the North of England where unemployment is more rife. The figures show that hon. Members in this House and those who support them outside are doing no good service to a cause which we all have at heart when they try to make party capital by saying that maternal mortality exists only where there is malnutrition, only where there is a means test, and only in distressed areas. Take Jarrow, Gateshead, Newcastle, South Shields—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am puzzled as to how the hon. and learned Member connects this with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. LYONS: I am sorry if T have erred, but I was dealing with the general scheme of the Bill and thought I was in order by showing figures of the north and in pointing out that this great problem was not by any means solely connected with the questions which I have indicated. This great problem demands consideration of all hon. Members, and I am glad to think that at long last we are passing a Measure which will give some safeguard and assurance to those women who are in need of this service. The Bill is to establish an adequate service for every expectant mother irrespective of her position, her means, or her place in society at a time of great anxiety, and to give her the best assistance and service which can be mobilised on her behalf. Every hon. Member will agree that there is no matter of more consequence within the comprehensive system of national health in this country than the problem of the expectant mother. Maternal mortality rates without doubt vary in accordance with the efficiency of the service. We have seen, for instance, a great institution in West Ham working with great success at this subject. For a long time attempts to deal with this problem have been localised, but now at any rate we


can rejoice that we are going to give everyone the same chance, the same safeguards and the same assistance as has been given in these purely localised attempts.
The position of the midwife up to now has not been satisfactory. She has been badly remunerated, there has been no incentive to become properly efficient, to have at hand the best and most sterilised instruments to help her, and she has had an insufficient status and no prospects. The Whole of these failures have combined to make the work she has to do inefficient, and I hope we shall put an end to that inefficiency and make a midwifery service which is complete, which is efficient, which is highly trained, and which is at the disposal of every expectant mother anywhere in the country, irrespective of income or station. Many observations have been made tonight about the period of time during which a midwife should be in attendance on an expectant mother. I am not satisfied, and I say quite frankly from the inquiries I have made and the advice I have been given—I take advice on this matter from authoritative quarters—that 10 days is sufficient. The Minister himself does not accept 10 days as being the right minimum of time, and in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not wedded to that period, but would support a period of time which was most likely to be effective.
I am told by the highest medical authorities that diseases which are most likely to come to women in these circumstances are more likely to come on after 10, 11, 12 and 13 days than during the 10 days, and I express the hope that in October when the period is settled by the Central Midwives Board, it will be extended to such a period as will take in generously all the time during which disease is most likely to occur. If the Central Midwives Board assert, as I believe they will, that 14 or 15 days is the minimum period for safety, then I hope that will be the minimum period which will be prescribed. Nobody can say that 10 days is sufficient, and when the Central Midwives Board put forward an extended period, whatever it is, which will reasonably satisfy medical experience as being sufficient, I hope the Minister will

accept the period proposed. I hope that science, inquiry and investigation will not hesitate to say that the period will be fixed at such a minimum as will remove, as far as it can be reasonably removed, from a mother the peril of those diseases which she is likely to encounter during the difficult period after childbirth. I am told that many diseases begin on the twelfth or thirteenth day and have to be closely watched, and I would like to see a clean certificate required from a medical attendant before the expiration of the period in this Bill.
I was one of those who, in my desire to see that the midwife was properly safeguarded, raised in Committee the question of an appeal by the midwife. I do not believe in an appeal to the Minister, and I say so without reservation. I do not believe in any circumstances in sidetracking the subject from his right to go to the courts. If the subject has a grievance the established courts of the land are the only authorities to consider that grievance. We have seen this method work badly in other attempts which have been made, and I do not desire to see any Minister put as judge in his own cause. It is no excuse to say that the midwife does not like publicity. Arrangements could be made whereby she could go to the county court judge in chambers. It would cost her nothing. She could go by herself, if she desired, without payment of any fees or costs and state her case. The Minister said in Committee that if the Bill goes through as now drawn his representative will hear the evidence, and the Minister, who does not hear the evidence or see the person, will make the decision.
That is a great drawback in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will see that the midwife who is taking that course as an aggrieved person will be given every reasonable facility to state and restate her case and amend it. It is a wholly unsatisfactory method of ventilating a grievance and getting a remedy for the Minister to rely on what one of his officers says. No remedy can compare with that given by the courts to any aggrieved person to state her case. I hope the Minister will see that any aggrieved person is not put aside on any case she makes in a letter, possibly badly phrased and insufficiently made out, but that she will be given every


opportunity of ensuring that her grievance is properly stated and properly considered, so that the Minister can know the full facts before he makes a decision.
There was a general desire on all sides in Committee to make this a, better Bill. We can congratulate ourselves that, notwithstanding all our difficulties, internally and externally, we have put our hands to the wheel to try and give to the expectant mother that safeguard she gets nowhere else. All over the world this problem exists. We are trying to-night to cope with the problem, which must be present in the mind of every hon. Member in this House. It affects the whole of the country. We are determined, by better status and a more efficient and more competent service of midwives, to deal with this problem. I hope the House recognises that we can, if we have the will, extend these provisions and so make them more beneficial to the people to whom they are to apply. And I hope that the House to-night with one mind and without division will pass this Bill as a great step in social benefit.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have followed this Bill from the time it was produced. I was at its birth, and I can almost say that I was there when it was conceived, for I was on the Committee that brought forth the report on which this Bill is based. I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman not to exaggerate the importance of this Measure. Let us remember that this Bill is a Midwives Bill, and it is not a "safety in motherhood" Bill.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Would the hon. Member agree that the mother stands a better chance of recovery if she is not suffering from malnutrition?

Mr. DAVIES: I will make my own speech in my own way.

Mr. LYONS: Would the hon. Member tell me whether it is not a fact that the only direct way of giving safeguards to the expectant mother is through machinery such as this to give her the services of a qualified midwife?

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman is called learned, but he must learn a little more about this subject.

Viscountess ASTOR: So must you all.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not know why I always seem to anger the Noble Lady.

Viscountess ASTOR: You let me alone.

Mr. DAVIES: Under this Bill when it becomes an Act the midwife will be with the mother 14 days. Will anybody argue that a competent midwife with the mother for 14 days after confinement is going to make all that tremendous change in maternal mortality forecast by the hon. and learned Gentleman? We support this Bill because it will give the midwife a decent salary and a proper status. So far as its effect on maternal mortality is concerned, I doubt whether it will affect that problem very much. I am hoping that it will, and I am certain that if it means that a more competent midwife attends in confinement, the Bill will do something towards it. But to suppose that it is going to make a serious attack on maternal mortality is nothing but moonshine.
An hon. Member on this side said that maternal mortality is high in the distressed areas. I do not wish to be vulgar, but my view of life, after a great deal of experience, is that some people suffer from eating too much and others from eating too little. Some people are ill because they are too well fed and others because they are too badly fed. As a layman who is very closely interested in these problems, I am willing to believe the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Leicester that in towns such as Bournemouth and Eastbourne they are as badly off physically as they are in Durham; but that is no reason why we should not attempt to save the mothers of Durham and Eastbourne and Bournemouth alike. If we can we should save them all, but this Bill does not save them. From the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman one would imagine that there is to be a general clean-up of the whole midwifery service of the land, that specialists are coming in to render services to the mothers in confinement; but he knows as well as I do that all this Bill does is to improve the status and pay of the midwives, and in that connection we support the Measure. I note that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is listening attentively to what I am saying, and I am sure that when he removes all the imagination he possesses on the public platform outside, he will agree with all that I have said.
We have been criticised for our attitude on this Bill. We have been criticised because of our unwillingness to have the voluntary organisations within the provisions of the Bill. Why should we not be critical of voluntary organisations? First and foremost, the local authorities in this country have proved themselves to be one thing above all others, they are in the main efficient because their activities are open to public criticism. The voluntary organisations are not open to public criticism. As a matter of fact, cases of which I have heard from time to time show that some voluntary organisations ought never to have existed. In our criticism we have one thing in our favour: whether the local authorities are governed by Liberals, Conservatives or Socialists, it may be said in the main that they are clean, they are conducted efficiently and they are generally well managed. That cannot be said as a general thing about voluntary organisations. That is the main reason we oppose this very necessary work being handed over to voluntary organisations. The right hon. Gentleman said something about our attitude with regard to the 14 days minimum lying-in period. In criticising our attitude he said, "We have to be very careful because if we put 14 days into an Act of Parliament, the time may come when we shall want to put in 21 days." He used that argument against the 14 days minimum lying-in period. But he knows as well as I do that however Socialist we may become in this country, it is amazing how Tory we remain in all the things we do. The first Midwives Bill was in 1902, 34 years ago.

Viscountess ASTOR: Since then women have had the vote.

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, but if some women would learn to be silent, I think Parliament would make much more progress. I hope I am not being offensive to the Noble Lady. The point I was making was that the right hon. Gentleman said that we must not put 14 days in this Bill, because the Government may want to increase the 14 days to 21. Now, we have had very grave difficulty in convincing the Government that 14 days instead of 10 days should be inserted in the rules, and I am not sure that it was not a slip on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary, because his chief was in Bradford, or

some other town, that day. I must say, as I have said before, that on every Bill brought before the House from the Ministry of Health we have done very much better with the Minister absent.

Mr. DUNCAN: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but I would point out that the pressure about the 14 clays lying-in period did not come only from his side of the House. I also had an Amendment down for 14 days, and if there was any pressure it was not from hon. Members opposite only.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not dispute that, but I would say that we went one day better than the hon. Member, and if he had put 15 days, we would have put 16. The point I wanted to make was that in using such an argument the Minister was only begging the question, because he knows full well that when we pass a Bill through this House the provisions of the Act very often, if not always, have to last for at least a decade. Therefore, I do not think he was justified in using that argument. As I have said before, from the midwives' point of view this is a very useful Measure, and it will undoubtedly be reflected in the better treatment of the mother during confinement, but the problem of maternal mortality is only incidental to the Bill.
The day is fast approaching in this country when the child will be very much more welcome than A is to-day. The decline in the birth rate is still going on. In some seaside resorts in this country there are more people over 60 years of age than under 14, and the trend is still proceeding in that direction. There is an extension of the average age every year and a decline in the birth rate at the same time. This Bill is well conceived, so far as the midwife is concerned, with the intention of providing a better service for the mother in confinement, but the value of the child will increase in the eyes of the public and in the estimation of the Government as the decline in the birth rate goes on. I hope to see the day come when the mother in confinement will have something even more than mere good attention at child-birth. Fourteen days' attention from a skilled midwife is hardly enough.
Before I sit down I wish to pay a tribute to the Noble Lady the Member


for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). Even though she is a Tory, she has some good points. I want to pay a tribute to her for her advocacy of nursery schools. If she can achieve her object, that will relieve and help the mother almost as much as good midwifery service in confinement. There is nothing more heartrending than the spectacle of a mother with two or three little ones round her all day long while she is nursing a newly-born infant. Although this Bill is necessary and is, indeed, a good Bill for the midwives of this country, the problem of maternal mortality remains to be tackled and nobody knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman.

9.46 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: May I say first how much I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) was able to take part in the Debate to-day notwithstanding the tragic circumstances of which he informed the House, and also how much I appreciate the consideration and help which he has given throughout all the stages of this Bill, and particularly in Committee. I also desire to thank hon. Members of the Committee upstairs and of the House generally for the careful consideration which has been given to this Measure. Although it is but a short Bill it occupied a number of days in Committee, and I think the House will realise that I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave consideration to all Amendments which were submitted for the purpose of improving the Measure and accepted a very large number of Amendments from all quarters with that end in view. It is common form for the Opposition on a Bill of this character to say that it ought to go further, that other provisions might have been made and to offer criticisms of that kind, but I confess I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) took that course just now. It is within the recollection of hon. Members that he described the Bill generally as a rather trumpery affair, and expressed the opinion that it would only be of value to the midwives. I think that is a fair interpretation of what he said.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Not quite.

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman would like to amend it I am prepared to

give way to him but I think it is a fair representation of what he said. But that was not what he said some time ago. I have here a report of a body called the Joint Council on Midwifery in the proceedings of which a number of distinguished gentlemen took part. I see that among those who signed the report without any dissent there is one, described as an independent member—which I think was a good title for the gentleman concerned at that particular moment—named, Mr. Rhys Davies, M.P. I am gratified to observe that so far from belittling this proposal and saying that it is only for the benefit of the midwives the report contains this statement which has the endorsement of the hon. Gentleman:
A well-trained, well-informed and intelligent service of midwives, working in co-operation with the medical profession is, therefore, of premier importance in any scheme for the reduction of maternal mortality and morbidity.
I am satisfied to accept that judgment on the proposals in the Bill and I think it is generally agreed that, as far as any immediate measure is possible in present circumstances, the provision of an adequate midwifery service is the step which promises best at this juncture. I agree with what has been said in all quarters of the House to the effect that no one can regard this Measure as the only solution or as indicating the only way of tackling the problem and, as regards other steps which are open at this moment to local authorities and voluntary organisations, I assure the House that I shall do my best to encourage them. Various references have been made to armaments and to expenditure on social services and comparisons of that kind. I can say that services for making better provision for maternity cases are steadily progressing. I find that, since 1921, ante-natal clinics have increased by 20 per cent. and last year the encouragement which has been given in this matter by people of all parties and all sections was shown by the fact that attendances at these clinics totalled over 1,000,000. I wish also to assure the House that postnatal facilities are steadily increasing. Maternity and child welfare authorities to-day can show considerable progress since the time when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had responsibilities in this matter. Some 400 maternity and child welfare authorities are supplying


milk, either free or at less than cost, to necessitous expectant mothers.
On that aspect of the matter, I desire to remark only that while this Bill may be a contribution and while the services which I have mentioned may also be contributions, that is not the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. For some considerable time the Ministry have authorised expert inquiries into the various problems of maternal mortality and the causes of the high rate. For some months, expert medical men have been conducting examinations into the circumstances of those areas where the rate is high, and for purposes of comparison they have also visited areas in which there is a low rate. For months a number of officers have been devoting themselves exclusively to that work. I hope to receive by the end of the year the report of this inquiry, which I believe will be the most extensive and expert report on the subject ever obtained in this or perhaps any other country. When I receive it, I shall certainly make it available to the House and we shall then be able to consider what steps we can usefully take to deal with this very difficult problem. Many courses may be open to us. I would not dogmatise on this question. I believe that the problem will have to be tackled on many sides and in many forms. Speaking in advance of the report to which I have just referred, I do not believe it will be found that there is any single way of dealing with the problem. I believe there are many ways in which it will have to be attacked if we are to defeat it.
I do not wish to be drawn into a controversy as to how far malnutrition plays a part in this problem, because we are to debate the subject of malnutrition tomorrow. It is an extraordinary thing, but, as was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who mentioned a tragic personal case to the House this afternoon, you cannot dispose of this question by saying that it is the poor who suffer from this high maternal mortality rate or that it is people who are under-fed who suffer from it. It is a far more difficult problem than that. I am convinced, from all the attention which I have endeavoured to give to this matter and from the extent to which we have found it in this country that certainly an expert midwifery service promises us a great

deal. It is a most extraordinary thing that when you find a whole-time mid-wifely service in existence, particularly in a number of rural districts, you find the maternal mortality rate sometimes half the average rate for the country. It is on that, to a very large extent, that I am building my hopes.
Now I must say a word, very briefly, upon the major matter which has divided the hon. Members opposite and myself so far as this Bill is concerned. They have sought, both in Committee and again during the Report stage, to delete from the machinery of this Measure any scope for the voluntary organisations, and if they could have their way, as they have repeatedly said, no voluntary organisation in this country would play any part in the future in the provision of maternity services in this country. I cannot conceive for a moment that they would get much support for that policy in the country, and I do not think they would get much support for it from many of their own followers in the country. I say that because, as a matter of fact, what do I find when I examine the position of many of the local authorities which have a Socialist majority at the present time? I find that they are working, as a matter of fact, in full co-operation and on the very best of terms with the voluntary organisations in their area, and they have no desire to see the voluntary organisations wiped out. There was a very interesting letter in the "Times" only a short time ago, from the secretary of the Plaistow Maternity Hospital and District Nurses' Home, in the district of West Ham, where they have a tremendous Socialist majority, and this is what the secretary said, and it is the view of a large number of people, of all political views, up and down the country:
I notice in the report on the further consideration by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons published in the 'Times' to-day that Mr. Rhys Davies, Labour Member for Westhoughton, stated: 'The Labour party were satisfied that the midwifery service of the country had ignominiously failed because of the failure of voluntaryism.'
Reading such words as these, I cannot help but wonder whether such a sweeping statement is made under ignorance of the facts, or is just made in blind prejudice against voluntary institutions.
Only a few days ago the record of West Ham "—


Hon. Members will remember that I referred to it on the Second Reading—
with its low rate of maternal mortality—2.48 per 1,000 births—in the borough, was referred to in the House.
It is in West Ham that this hospital, the Plaistow Maternity Hospital and District Nurses' Home, carries on the greater part of its work. Actually our midwives attend every year to a large majority of the midwifery cases in the borough.
During the past 26 years our midwives, in our hospital and at the homes of the patients, have attended to 111,406 midwifery eases, and during that time and notwithstanding that large number of cases, only 123 mothers died in childbirth, a rate of maternal mortality of only 1.10 per 1,000 cases.
I would like the House to listen to the rest of the letter:
West Ham is itself a Labour borough with a Labour council, but I am glad to say that our relations with the council are of the happiest, and it is largely because we are able to do our work in close co-operation with, and with financial assistance from, the council, that West Ham is able to point an example of what can be done in the way of lowering the rate of maternal mortality.
I would suggest that Mr. Rhys Davies should study and think over these figures before making any such rash statements.
I read that letter because it is rather on the basis of the idea in that letter that this Bill is framed. I am not attempting to set up rival claims between local authorities and voluntary organisations in connection with these proposals. I want to see them both working in co-operation here, as they are doing in West Ham, and when the hon. Gentleman opposite says that the midwifery service of the country has largely failed because of the work of the voluntary associations, nothing is further from the fact. As a matter of fact, I am not blaming the local authorities, but I have had largely to bring in this Bill because of the failure of the local authorities to appoint midwives themselves. They are allowed to do so at this moment, and yet I find that, as far as London is concerned—the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows it full well in connection with the borough councils, and I am not blaming them, because they have their reasons for not doing much—they have only appointed eight midwives over the last three or four years. On the other hand, I find that the great work in connection with the midwifery services, particularly in the rural areas of the country, has been

carried out by these great voluntary organisations, and where they have carried out that work the maternal mortality rate is much lower than the rate for the rest of the country.
Therefore, I say that any Minister would take the same step as I am taking, when I say that we will set up a municipal service in which these local authorities shall be the supervising authorities, and that they shall invite and consult with the voluntary associations in their area and utilise them to the best of their ability. If there is any dispute as to the arrangements between the voluntary organisations and the local authorities, then they shall go to the Minister of Health, and whoever he may be who may succeed me, he shall decide as to the best scheme which shall be available, and then the Minister shall be responsible for it so far as the House of Commons is concerned. Surely everyone will agree that to make a blind attack upon the voluntary associations of the country and say we are going to wipe them completely out, that directly this new service is begun they have to finish, would be the height of folly and would certainly not commend itself to the people of this country. Now, if the hon. Member opposite wants to say something, let him say it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: If the right hon. Gentleman is so very satisfied with the work of the voluntary organisations, what purpose is there in bringing in this Bill to compel the local authorities to do the job which the voluntary organisations have failed to do?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to that is this: I am not claiming for the voluntary organisations that they have made a complete service for the country. Their great work has been in the rural areas. When one looks round at ninny of the other districts, particularly in the towns and cities, one cannot be satisfied with the service that has been provided. Therefore, I say that I am doing a wise thing in endeavouring to avail myself of both organisations. Far from the local authorities following what I think is the unwise lead which the Labour party have endeavoured to give throughout the proceedings on this Bill, we shall find that the local authorities and the voluntary organisations will act in co-operation


and agreement to carry out the provisions of the Bill, and that we shall not have that blind hatred of the voluntary organisations which has been expressed by hon. Members opposite. I have the greatest confidence that they will work happily and smoothly together, and that, as a result of this Bill, we shall get the best from both the local authorities and the voluntary organisations.
The financial provisions of the Bill were at first criticised, but it is interesting to observe that this is the first time since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1929, that a new service has been instituted in connection with our social endeavours. It was a new thing and anybody who had the responsibility for the financial proposals of this Bill had to come to some decision concerning them. We might have fallen back on the old system, which I hope has long gone, of giving a local authority a half of whatever it might like to spend. That would mean that the authorities that were the best off would get most assistance from the State and that the poor authorities, whose need was probably the most, might very well receive less. In the proposals of this Bill I am glad to think that the needs of the particular areas is the prime consideration and that the areas whose needs are greatest will receive the best financial consideration. This is of great moment in the setting up of a new service, and I will give two illustrations of how it will work. Sunderland and Merthyr Tydfil will receive something like 80 or 85 per cent. of any expenditure they may make. Gateshead and Glamorgan will receive 76 per cent.
I am grateful for the general agreement in the House that the Bill will do a great deal for midwives. It will certainly secure a considerable improvement in the conditions of midwives and a better training. Some of the most pathetic things that I have read were letters describing the present position of some of the midwives. One of them wrote:
I doubt whether I have earned £90 out of 150 cases.
Another sent a letter saying:
There are four other midwives within a stone's-throw of my house. My yearly earnings are not more than £40.

Another sent this communication:
I can usually get just 25s. but I cannot get a living, and I shall be compelled in a few weeks to take anything I can get to earn a living.
The last, which I think was the most pathetic, was this:
In many cases I have had to take 6d. and 1s. a week, and many patients have not paid at all.
We are all in agreement, 1 think, that the provisions of this Bill will do a great deal to end that disgraceful state of affairs. The midwife in future will be a member of an organised service. She will be an integral part of the public health service and no longer a somewhat lone figure in the campaign against maternal mortality. There has been a difficulty, inasmuch as certain local authorities have adopted rules which require their female officers to retire on marriage. After consulting the associations of local authorities and the London County Council, I intend to point out to local authorities that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the employment of married midwives, and to recommend any authorities whose rules would prevent their employment to revise the rules so as to enable the authorities, in selecting the midwives first appointed to the new service, to have regard only to their efficiency as midwives. I am glad to say that I have the assent of the associations and of the London County Council, who assure me that they share my views entirely on this matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who has helped me so much in this matter, has already stated that we would not like anyone, because we are bringing in this Bill to deal with maternal mortality, to think that we are indulging in statements which will lead a number of mothers to think that departures from the normal occur in more than a small proportion of cases. I read a statement last week of someone who spoke at a conference in connection with maternity services, who said that it was safer to be in a car accident than to become a mother. I regret alarmist statements of that kind, which might themselves be a contribution to increased mortality, We do not want to frighten women, because motherhood is a natural event and not a serious surgical operation.
I claim for the Bill that it is a vital necessity, in which claim, I think, I shall


have the support of most of the informed opinion of the country, and that it is urgent, and I claim also that it provides a workable scheme. I believe that under it the local authorities and the voluntary organisations will tackle their new task with efficiency and, I think with enthusiasm; and I believe that it will raise the whole status of the midwifery profession and give a better midwifery service for mothers. It is an honest and sincere contribution to the effort we are making to reduce the present figures of maternal mortality.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday next.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday next.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

10.16 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to raise an objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. When various Measures are consolidated in one Bill it is almost taken for granted that it means the closing of the chapter with regard to that legislation, and I do not want it to be understood that by accepting this consolidating Measure some of us on these benches are agreed about the present position respecting widows' and orphans' pensions. For some time we have been asking for the removal of certain anomalies in the present legislation, but the Government have ignored our requests and have treated us with scant courtesy, and by their action in bringing forward this consolidating

Measure it would appear that they have no intention during the present Parliament of removing some of the anomalies of which we have complained. Legislation on this subject was passed originally in 1925, and certain amendments were made in it subsequently—I believe in 1929—but the working of the legislation has shown that there are many points which call for instant revision, and it is for that reason that I cannot give my consent to the Bill before us, because that might be taken as indicating that we have given way over the points which we think ought to be remedied.
We have constantly pointed out the position of the woman who does not happen to be the same age as her husband—that if she happens to be only 63 when he reaches the age of 65 she cannot get the pension. We have argued on many occasions that that is unfair, but our arguments have been ignored. There has been no reply, really, to the case we have put; it is merely said that it would cost too much money to introduce the reform which we advocate. We have also argued that the present age is too high and ought to be reduced. If we accept this consolidating Measure we shall be regarded as agreeing that no attempt need be made to revise the legislation for some time, because, although I agree with the practice of introducing consolidating Measures, bringing a number of Acts together under one cover, for the convenience of those who wish to consult them, the introduction of such a Measure is generally accepted as closing the chapter for some time at least. We cannot agree to the closing of the chapter in the case of widows' and orphans' pensions, because there are too many anomalies which need to he remedied, and I feel that I should not be doing right if I allowed the Measure to go through without protest.
It may be asked: "Why object to a consolidating Measure? You will not get your point by objecting to it. You will only leave the various Acts scattered about, to be searched for under different covers." That is quite true. I agree that this Bill will remove a lot of difficulties. At the same time, I know the feeling of the House of Commons when a Measure is passed in a consolidating form. If later we were to raise our voice in protest, I can imagine the Minister of Health, in the way that he has of always


remembering the little bits of things which have happened in the past and being ready to urge them against us, saying: "The hon. Member sat opposite me upon a certain night, and I did not hear him raise his voice in protest against the consolidating Measure. He is surely not going to open the whole subject again now." It is because of that, and because I know how many mistakes in the present law need altering, that I am protesting. I cannot agree that this Bill should be passed in its consolidating form while so many anomalies are contained in it, and I trust that it will not be agreed to.

10.22 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: If it appears that the hon. Gentleman has any foundation for saying that this consolidating Bill is to be regarded as closing a chapter finally, and establishing the pensions system upon its present basis, I am sure there will be protests from all quarters of the House. For my part, I take the opposite view. Before the House can, in due course, consider a Bill for the proper removal of the anomalies which now exist and for the further extension of a contributory scheme, it is essential that the existing law should be consolidated. For too long have we withstood the perfectly legitimate claims for the removal of such an anomaly as a childless widow of 30 getting a pension while a spinster of 50, probably incapacitated, cannot get a pension. Situations of that kind cry aloud for immediate revision. The Government are to be congratulated upon this Bill as a first step towards clearing the way for a proper revision of the pensions scheme, the removal of anomalies and the granting of those claims which can properly be made for adjustment.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I welcome the presentation of this consolidating Measure, because there will now be an opportunity for people to refer to it instead of to two or three Measures to find out the position with respect to widows', orphans' and old age pensions. They may find out what people are being paid for, and that certain people are paying for pensions who will never receive them because they will never have an opportunity to qualify for them. It may be discovered what

there is in the matter of disqualification. There are some very hard disqualifications. If, for that reason alone, the Government bring to the notice of people what there is in the Measure, I welcome the consolidation. The hon. Member who introduced this question fears that there may be a period of rest before an attempt is made to remedy the evils from which so many of our people suffer—widows and children, in cases where the breadwinner has been lost, people who are aged and who are denied a pension because of the contributory scheme. If this Bill means that we have to remain for some time without such evils being remedied, I should be inclined to oppose the consolidation. I hope the country will realise, when it sees this Measure in this form, what requires to be done, and that there will be a speedy move to remedy the evils under which many widows and children, spinsters and others, suffer at the present time.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I have only a few observations to make upon the protest which was made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). First I would say that no Government would assume that, because the Opposition did not oppose a Consolidation Bill, they accepted all the principles laid down in it. That has never been the case, and, that being so, the hon. Member must not infer that, because the Government wish to simplify this legislation by consolidation, that thereby closes the door to all reform. Certainly that has never been the principle upon which any Government that I can remember has operated. My hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) stated the position more fairly when he pointed out that, so far from closing the door, the consolidation of complicated legislation is very often the preliminary to amendment of the law; indeed, it cannot be carried out unless consolidation has first been achieved. The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are also consolidating the legislation relating to National Health Insurance, and that my right hon. Friend has promised next year to amend that legislation in further important respects. Therefore, there is no ground for the apprehensions which the hon. Gentleman expressed in the last, part of his speech.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.

10.27 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 4) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the Finance Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.
The effect of the two Orders on the Paper of which I am now asking the House to approve will be to restore the rate of duty on potatoes other than new potatoes, which was imposed by this House in May, 1933, under the Import Duties Act, 1932. The amount of the duty was a ton in July and August, and £1 a ton from September to June inclusive. These rates of duty were in force from 1933, without any alteration or modification, until last March. On the 26th March last, in consequence of a recommendation made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, the duties were removed. The reasons for the removal are probably still familiar to the House. It was due to the exceptional conditions prevailing at that time, which were explained to the House in considerable detail by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade early in April. The reasons were briefly the shortage of supplies and the consequent rise in prices. The letter of recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee was as follows:
We fully anticipate that in a few months' time the exceptional conditions which have led us to make this recommendation will have ceased to be operative. We shall keep the matter under review, and, if and when our anticipations are realised, we shall recommend that the duty be reimposed.
On the 12th June, the Import Duties Advisory Committee made recommendations in that sense, and they claim that the recommendation made by them in March and the decision subsequently taken by this House have been amply justified by the results. Prices might have been considerably higher but for

that decision. In spite of the fact that the import of potatoes other than new potatoes in the months of April and May amounted to 50,000 tons as compared with 970 tons in the same period of the previous year, the general upward trend of prices still continued until about the middle of May, though since that time growers' prices have begun to fall. At the moment there is no shortage, nor is there any prospect of a shortage. In fact, there is every indication that the supply of our home-grown early potatoes will be ample, and the reports from the producing areas forecast a very good yield. In the "Times" report on the condition of crops on the 1st July it is stated that potatoes this year promise to be better than in any of the past six years with the exception of 1933, and appreciably better than the 10-years' average. It is obvious that we have got back to normal, and it is reasonable therefore to restore the normal procedure, and normal duties. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, having considered the whole circumstances, state in their recommendation of 12th June:
The home market is, of course, now being supplied to a rapidly increasing extent by new potatoes and by the end of this month the trade in potatoes of last year's crop will be practically over. The exceptional circumstances which compelled the decision of last March will, therefore, be at an end, and accordingly we recommend that potatoes other than new should no longer he exempted from the general ad valorem duty.
There may be two questions which hon. Members opposite will ask. It may be said: Why bring these Orders in when the season for old potatoes is over and when there is no produce on which to collect money? The answer is a very obvious one. It is most convenient for everyone concerned that they should be introduced now. For one thing, there are no merchants' contracts running which are likely to be upset. Another point is that growers, having to make their plans ahead, will know that, if they produce what we want them to produce, they can do so on a basis of security and on the footing of a stable market. There is another question that I may be asked. It may be said: Why two orders instead of one? The answer to that is that under the Import Duties Act, 1932, the free list is separate from that of additional duties. Consequently the first Order, Exemption, No. 4 Order, removes potatoes


from the free list and the Additional Duties Order No. 13 reimposes the duties at the previous rate. In the Finance Bill of this year that rather cumbrous procedure will henceforth be obviated, as power has been taken to suspend duties for a definite period and at the end of that period, if so desired, they can be brought into force again. In a, normal season we produce practically all the potatoes we require. In a time of shortage we can draw, if necessary, on imports. We can, as it were, turn the tap on or off when there is need to do so. At the moment I think it will be clear that there is no necessity to keep the tap turned on. There are ample supplies in sight at reasonable prices, and I am asking the House to restore the position to what it was before March, 1936, and to approve these Orders.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We are much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for the information he has given us in introducing this reimposition of duty. I think it would be unprofitable to have a lengthy Debate on it, having regard to the fact that the position of potatoes has been debated over and over again, but it is necessary to point out that, if it had not been for the pressure of certain trade interests, especially potato merchants and importers, there would have been a far more serious position in the last few months for potato consumers than has actually been the case, and there is certainly a great deal to be said about the tardiness with which the Government took the necessary action to remove the duties, they not having been removed until as late as March. It is true that even after they had been removed prices continued to rise. That of course is because the removal of duty was deferred till so late in the season, that the European crop, which was in itself comparatively short, had already been allocated to a considerable extent, and there was not, therefore, the possibility of making British contracts for imports that there otherwise would have been.
There is only one other matter which is worth mentioning at the present time. Although personally I should not divide the House to-night on the Order which the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced, there is certainly a case to be

made against the very early reimposition of the duty, because there is a certain class of users of potatoes in this country who ought to be considered. There is a very extensive body of traders called the fish fryers, who are very wide users of potatoes and who serve them at convenient times and in a convenient form to a very large number of working-class customers. There is also the industry with which some hon. Members in the House, I believe, are acquainted, known as potato crisps, which is a modern and convenient form of food. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that in the actual presentation of these two uses of potatoes to the public, it is a very valuable thing to have old and main crop potatoes.
If you take the statistical position, as far as I know it to he, at the early part of last month—I have not the latest statistical position for this week—the total quantity of last year's main crop remaining in the country was only 98,000 tons. That means, at the ordinary rate of usage in the month of June, that we probably have very little left at all of these particular classes, and that those who are fish fryers and who turn potatoes into potato crisps may be severely handicapped in their business by being able to take nothing but new crop potatoes. The position will ease in a few weeks. Therefore, I think that it would have been wiser, though committed to the principle of imposing the duty, to have waited until there was a real and absolute necessity to do so.
No doubt at the moment the position of the home crop is promising. No one wants to deny the fact that, with the moist weather we have had in the summer season, there is no danger at present of a shortage from drought, but there are dangers yet to be faced in the last part of the growing season of the main crop, especially because of the wetness of the season. I hope that, though we do not raise any further objection to-night to this Order, the Government will see to it that, if there is any shortage of crop later in the season, they will not be so, tied as they were last winter in dealing with the removal temporarily of the duty. It was really quite unreasonable that the working-class housewife should have had to pay right through the main part of last winter 1½d and more per pound for main crop potatoes.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. R. ACLAND: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that it is perhaps unnecessary to have a. prolonged discussion on this Order now, as we shall be dealing in general terms to-morrow with some of the questions this Issue might raise in the smaller field now. We should realise that we have a close corporation of potato growers and that no one can come into the trade except on payment of something like £5 per acre, and although we are promised a very plentiful crop this year, we have a corporation which is capable by regula- tions, even in spite of a plentiful crop, of keeping up the price to the consumers. There is the machinery for restricting output and the number of sellers, but the price is fixed by the home crop, which satisfies 90 per cent. of the home market, and it seems to me that one safeguard against abuses by this close co-operation is the possibility of imports. This ought to be taken into account, and I hope it will be taken into account to-morrow in connection with the problem of nutrition. There have been very strong recommendations that the protein foods, such as starches and sugars, should be left out, and foodstuffs such as potatoes should take their place, with a view to better dieting of the nation. In view also of the reports from the League of Nations it seems to me to be a wrong step to put a tax on potatoes which amounts to 10 per cent. of their retail price.
The Minister might have given us a little fuller detail of what is happening at the moment in regard to the prices of potatoes. He says that there is a fall. Can he be a little more specific? He says that it is going to be normal that potatoes should be taxed £1 to £2 per ton. Is that the view of the House? Is it not the fact that in 1933–34 the prices of potatoes fell very low and £1 and £2 duties were put on, because it was stated that conditions were abnormal? Are the wholesale or retail prices of potatoes falling now so as to come even so low As in 1929? Can the Minister tell us that? I understand that in May of this year the price was 8d. per seven pounds, and that in May of 1929 it was as low as 6¾d. per seven pounds. Can the Minister say

whether the prices are in danger of coming down as low as they were in 1929? If not, it would have been better to delay the reimposition of these duties until the prices were getting something lower than in 1929 or something like the prices in 1933–34, which were abnormal.

10.43 p.m.

Sir RONALD ROSS: The hon. Member who has just spoken, to whom we always listen with pleasure, is a distinguished survival of the doctrine of the pure Free Trade method of thought. He has described potato growers as a rather sinister body of people, who like to screw or wring the neck of the poor. That is rather what I suspect he meant, I can assure him, having a very large number of potato growers in my constituency: that they have a very much lower standard of life than many people. They are very poor and very hardworking. What the Government are trying to do in to get stabilised prices; to try and get prices remaining at a level which is reasonable. I think that in the present year there is a very grave risk of there being a complete glut of potatoes. The potato grower may find himself in the position of being faced by tremendous production, and it will be frightfully hard to keep prices at an economic level, without any foreign imports.
Speaking for many potato growers and for a large number of people of an industrial population I can assure hon. and right hon. Members opposite that I and certainly the Government have no intention or desire to put an unreasonable price on potatoes. We have always been able to send potatoes from the North of Ireland at a price which works out at one penny per pound, but the difficulty is that you may have the price dropping down to a wholly uneconomic level and ruining the people who grow potatoes. The principle of the Government's proposal is the same as that of the Assuan Dam, which is to keep the level of the Nile. I appeal for people who work very hard in a very hard trade, and I ask that there should be regulations which will regulate their crop and make it economic.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. FURNESS: I should like to reinforce the appeal which has been made


for a little more explanation on this matter. Some of us approach with some uneasiness this taxation upon foodstuffs which are very essential to a large number of our people. I should be the last person to want to deny to our farming community a fair price for potatoes, but it is difficult for some of us to follow these matters, and I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the relation of the price obtainable for potatoes with the cost of production. We are willing to grant them a fair and reasonable margin, but at the same time hope that the Minister is keeping this margin under close consideration. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) said that there is considerable difficulty about increasing the production of potatoes in this country, because there is what is called a fine levied upon those who increase their acreage of potatoes. It is impossible for some of us to keep track of the multitudinous regulations which are introduced for the growing of potatoes or the production of any other farming commodity, but we hope that this matter is being kept under the most careful consideration. It is a big responsibility for bon. Members to consent without a full explanation to anything which does increase the cost of living to the poorest of our people.
There is one other point I must mention, because I was pressed very hard upon it in the Election—the condition of the fish fryers, They have put it to me that they are one of the biggest consumers of potatoes in this country, and they feel that there should be closer consultation between them and the Minister of Agriculture when these duties are being discussed. As they are large consumers of potatoes, they say that they should have some say in the matter when these Orders are introduced.

10.48 p. m.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) showed a certain amount of apprehension as to what might be the retail price as a result of this Order. I think I can give him a few figures to show that what really governs the retail price is the amount of the annual crop: whether it is high or low. Take the years 1929–30, 1930–31

and 1931–32. The production in the year 1929–30 was: home production 4,743,000 tons, shipments from Northern Ireland were about 62,000 tons, and imports, main crop, 28,000 tons, the total being about 5,000,000 tons. The growers' price at Wisbech was 49s. per ton. The following year the total supply was 4,257,000 tons, and the price rose to 106s. 6d. per ton, the rise from 49s. to 106s. was simply the result of a smaller crop. In the following year it was worse. In 1931–32 the total supply was 4,407,000 tons, and the growers' price rose to 162s. I can assure the House that the duty itself is a negligible hardship on the consumer, and it is a hardship that is not likely to occur except in times of abnormal shortage, and in such times as that we can follow a procedure similar to that which was taken last March. The figures make it plain, therefore, that it is the size of the crop which affects price, and that the duty plays a very small part indeed. The hon. Member asked me what the future price would be. If I could forecast what the price would be I should be able to make a large sum of money. But knowing what past experience has been, and knowing the prospects of this year's crop, I do not think that we can anticipate any hardship to the consumer.

Mr. ACLAND: Has the Minister got the retail prices for June this year?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: No, I am afraid not. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Furness) relating to fish fryers, I can assure him that the Ministry is frequently in consultation with them, not only in connection with potatoes but also in connection with fish, and that we shall continue to be in frequent consultation with them.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 4) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the Finance Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, he approved.


Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 13) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, he approved."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.